Talk:Capture of USS President

Untitled
Insofar as I am concerned, "You may delete when you are ready, Mr. Gridley." Mmccalpin 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

consistency
Shouldn’t someone at least mention that this incident occurred after the Treaty of Ghent was signed? The articles about the capture of HMS Cyane by USS Constitution and most especially the article about the battle of New Orleans make this clear in those cases, some editors going so far as to claim (either in the text or in the talk page) that the battle of New Orleans was fought because the combatants weren’t aware that the war was over. In fairness, the same points should either be made here or removed from the other articles to avoid the appearance that only American victories should be disparaged in this manner. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the difference is that this engagement took place several weeks before the treaty was ratified, whereas the capture of Cyane took place a few days after.--Ykraps (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you not notice my larger point? About the battle of New Orleans? Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cyanne article makes much of the fact that the combatants were not aware the war was over, "but the combatants were not aware of this" (lead), "Constitution reached Puerto Rico where Stewart learned that the war had ended some days before he had fought", (last paragraph), and the New Orleans article makes it abundantly clear that the treaty had yet to be fully ratified so whatever point you think is being made is thus nullified in both articles. Your initial comment mentioned the Treaty of Ghent but did not make any reference to its ratification which led me to believe that that was either something you didn’t want to include or hadn’t even considered. In either event, I thought it important to make the distinction. Rather than trade patronising insults and now that you’ve had some time to think about it, what is the precise wording you wish to add in order to improve the article? Notwithstanding of course that this article is currently a long way short of its purported B class rating.--Ykraps (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with you much more than you think. In truth, I can't disagree with any point you made about this entry. I have known for many years that this battle, as well as the battle of New Orleans, were fought after the treaty was signed but before it was ratified or had taken effect. My real problem is with the entry for the Battle of New Orleans, especially how it used to be, it has been improved a lot, but still has a comment that "hostilities would continue in Louisiana without knowing about and contrary to the treaty." There once was a time when it actually stated that it was fought after the war had ended (and I still hear this quite often conversationally) but that the combatants didn't know it because word had not yet reached the "southern theater of operations" (as if word of the treaty had arrived anywhere in the U.S. by that time) and it struck me as unfair, even biased, that this entry was not being subjected to the same treatment as the Battle of New Orleans was getting. I would appreciate very much your help to get that entry up to the standards of this one. I would also ask how my point nullified in both entries? The Treaty of Ghent has the same bearing on the one as on the other, yet it is not mentioned here but is considerably mentioned there. You would have to admit that for the sake of consistency, if it is in one it should also be in the other. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was a little confused by your use of the word disparage, which I took to mean worthless; to describe a battle in a war that most modern historians, on both sides of the Atlantic, consider worthless in its entirety. Thus it appeared to me that you thought there was some conspiracy to downplay or dishonour American victories. I don’t see it that way because, as I’ve already said, both articles go to some length to absolve all parties of any wrong-doing. So if you want to add a similar explanation to this article, I don’t have any objections.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added a short sentence to the lead which I hope meets with your approval.--Ykraps (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Check Forester, The Age of Fighting Sail. The official dispatches regarding the Treaty of Ghent were sent on the sloop of war HMS Favourite, and had not arrived at any point in the Americas before USS President sortied. Indeed, I recall a sentence which said roughly "... the same westerly gales which held up HMS Favourite also blew the squadron under Hayes off station ...". My apologies, I ought to have addressed this point much earlier. HLGallon (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Did USS President surrender to HMS Endymion?
I removed the text disputing this from the article. I have not checked the sources myself, but if true, it should be included in the article. Banedon (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Andrew Lambert's book most certainly does say that and he cites Endymion's log. The log itself is located at the National Archives in Kew and is publicly available to anyone with a reader's ticket.[] That's all I can tell you for the moment, I'm afraid.--Ykraps (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not read the sources and so can't comment. I'm going to ping however, since (s)he is the one that disputed the accuracy of the section and added the text I removed. Banedon (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I have. "Tales of the wars; or, Naval and military chronicle: To which is prefixed, A memoir of the early life and services of William the Fourth, with an authentic portrait of His Majesty, Volume 3", published by W. M. Clark in 1838, states, "...and at 7:58 PM ceased (firing) altogether and showed, or appeared to show, a light. conceiving that the President had struck, the Endymion also ceased firing and began to bend new sails...about half-past eleven PM the Pomone came up and gained a position upon the President’s larboard quarter and luffing up, fired her starboard broadside, but did little or no damage. The President immediately shortened sail and luffed up also, as if to pour a broadside into Pomone. Instead of that however, the American frigate hailed that she had surrendered and hoisted a light in her mizzen rigging" (p.227). William James on page 364 of his book, "The Naval History of Great Britain from the Declaration of War by France in 1793 to the Accession of George IV" (1837), says that President showed or appeared to show a light and that when Pomone caught up, President hailed that she had surrendered. On page 310 of "Brett's Illustrated Naval History of Great Britain, from the Earliest Period to the Present Time: A Reliable Record of the Maritime Rise and Progress of England", it says, "...at 7:58, President ceased firing and showed, or appeared to show a light...When Pomone arrived at 11:30, President luffed up and hailed that she had surrendered". "An Inquiry Into the Merits of the Principal Naval Actions", also by William James, says "...the Pomone getting up at 11:30 and firing a few shots, the enemy hailed to say, she had already surrendered"(Page 90). Mr Bowie, the President’s school master, at the American’s court of enquiry, stopped short of saying the President had surrendered but stated that "When the President hauled away from Endymion at 8:00, her men, to use a familiar phrase, had had enough; and her commander, fully determined upon making no further resistance". Regards --Ykraps (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capture of USS President. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613140031/http://members.cox.net/shipkiller/data/frigate/president_frigate.html to http://members.cox.net/shipkiller/data/frigate/president_frigate.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Capture of USS President
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Capture of USS President's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lambert": From HMS Endymion (1797): Lambert (2012). From Stephen Decatur: Lambert, 2012 pp.364–371 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent POV edits
I am concerned by the recent storm of edits, which have turned what was a featured article into a very one-sided and argumentative work. The grammatical and structural quality of these edits is also questionable. This could be addressed by copyediting, but this still leaves a heavy POV slant, derived from a single source. I would suggest that the arguments concerning public opinion be removed, and other sources be mentioned to restore a more neutral tone. HLGallon (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed, now far too one-sided. Nothing wrong with using Lambert as a source, in my opinion, but shouldn't be the only source and ought to be balanced with others. My preference would be to remove all opinion and just report the facts. Where facts differ in sources, all sides should be included with appropriate citations.--Ykraps (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been endeavoring to address this issue and also to repair some of the bad grammar and syntax issues throughout. One example of the bad writing is this sentence: "After Majestic had fired some ranging shots which fell short, Pomone overtook the "Majestic" and led the pursuit, but Tenedos appeared unexpectedly to the south and Hayes sent Pomone to investigate." I have removed it twice now, but HLGallon persistently reverts my edits. I would happily convert the sentence into something intelligble—but alas, I don't know what it means or why it's there! Since HLGallon claims in his reverts that it "makes perfect sense to me", perhaps he will edit it for grammar and structure—since he is the one who laments the poor writing which saturates the article.

Why did Tenedos "appear unexpectedly"? Where was it appearing from and where had it been previously? What exactly was Pomone sent to investigate? What bearing does any of these details have on the engagement twixt Endymion and President?? If you can resolve these mysteries, perhaps you can also edit this incomprehensible sentence into something that is syntactically and grammatically improved. However, I suspect that it is just another factoid that is irrelevant to the context, since that is a very persistent problem throughout the article. So HLGallon: please either make sense of this nonsense, or else desist from reverting my deletions. —Dilidor (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read the sentence in the preceding section:

"As the winds slowed, the British regrouped. Hayes realized that American ships might have taken the opportunity to leave port unobserved, so he left Tenedos to watch the Sandy Hook passage and headed north to watch the Long Island passage, rather than heading back to the harbor entrance."


 * So "Tenedos" appeared unexpectedly from the direction of the Sandy Hook passage. There should be nothing unintelligible about this. "Pomone" was sent south to to investigate "Tenedos's" unexpected appearance. There should be nothing unitelligible about this either. There is nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence. It is not an irrelevant factoid either; if it is removed then "Tenedos's" appearance at the kill, having been previously detached, must be explained without hand-waving. It is factual and not in any way POV. That is why it should be retained. HLGallon (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Clowes and James state that Pomone was sent to investigate the possibility that Tenedos was another American ship.--Ykraps (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversy
The editing of User:Dilidor has essentially removed all reference to the controversy that has been an integral part of the record of this action from the very start. This is to be regretted. The action was not a simple duel, USS President was being pursued by a squadron and this directly affected the American's tactics. Also, largely split on nationalistic grounds, the question, 'was President beaten by Endymion, or did it surrender to a superior squadron?' has been central to all subsequent enquiry. In reality the answer is yes to both versions, but many British sources emphasise the former, while American sources state the latter. This dichotomy can be traced back to the actions and statements of the commander of the President. When surrendering to the officers of Tenedos, he directed that his sword be sent to the captain of Endymion, as he had struck to her alone. This is professional courtesy as he had been outfought be Endymion, but in his later report to the US naval authorities he emphasised that he had surrendered to the superior force of a squadron. These aspects need to be addressed in any encyclopaedic article. Urselius (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)