User:Brad101/SourceAnalysis

Here are a list of books that I've read and or used for sourcing in the articles about the original six frigates of the United States Navy; including USS Chesapeake (1799), USS Congress (1799), USS Constellation (1797), USS Constitution, USS President (1800) and USS United States (1797).

Not all of these books have actually been used as sources, which you'll soon see why. There are reams of books about the early era of the United States Navy and inevitably reams of confusion with some authors making wild claims or accusations.


 * The above two books by Allen have been widely cited by other authors in the last 100 years. If you want information on every obscure naval ship that saw service in the Quasi, First, and Second Barbary Wars then these are the ones you need. Allen also did one book about the Continental Navy which I have yet to read.
 * The above two books by Allen have been widely cited by other authors in the last 100 years. If you want information on every obscure naval ship that saw service in the Quasi, First, and Second Barbary Wars then these are the ones you need. Allen also did one book about the Continental Navy which I have yet to read.
 * The above two books by Allen have been widely cited by other authors in the last 100 years. If you want information on every obscure naval ship that saw service in the Quasi, First, and Second Barbary Wars then these are the ones you need. Allen also did one book about the Continental Navy which I have yet to read.


 * Beach crams 200 years of naval history into one 500 page book. This of course leaves out a lot of information in particular to ships. Some strange claims are made that John Adams named Congress and President instead of George Washington. I don't find this claim very credible. All other sources on this matter state that Washington chose the first five names leaving the last (Chesapeake) unnamed. Beach is also one of the holdouts claiming Chesapeake was a 36-gun frigate but there is a lot of conflicting information floating around out there on this particular point. Nevertheless, the book does contain useful information and overall makes a good backup type of source.
 * This is primarily a book about naval architecture so do not expect to find action reports here. It's very good for measurements and dimensions and things of that sort. According to Wegner (listed below), Chapelle was the first person to question the validity of USS Constellation (1854) as being the same ship as Constellation (1797). Some bad points here are that Chapelle makes a gross error in stating the Naval Act of 1794 authorized three 44-gun and three 36-gun frigates. Unfortunately this error continues to be cited by other authors too lazy to actually look at the wording of the act itself. Chapelle also spends way too much time defending Josiah Fox and his redesign of Chesapeake; much more than is warranted. Overall I've only cited this book where needed.
 * This is primarily a book about naval architecture so do not expect to find action reports here. It's very good for measurements and dimensions and things of that sort. According to Wegner (listed below), Chapelle was the first person to question the validity of USS Constellation (1854) as being the same ship as Constellation (1797). Some bad points here are that Chapelle makes a gross error in stating the Naval Act of 1794 authorized three 44-gun and three 36-gun frigates. Unfortunately this error continues to be cited by other authors too lazy to actually look at the wording of the act itself. Chapelle also spends way too much time defending Josiah Fox and his redesign of Chesapeake; much more than is warranted. Overall I've only cited this book where needed.
 * This is primarily a book about naval architecture so do not expect to find action reports here. It's very good for measurements and dimensions and things of that sort. According to Wegner (listed below), Chapelle was the first person to question the validity of USS Constellation (1854) as being the same ship as Constellation (1797). Some bad points here are that Chapelle makes a gross error in stating the Naval Act of 1794 authorized three 44-gun and three 36-gun frigates. Unfortunately this error continues to be cited by other authors too lazy to actually look at the wording of the act itself. Chapelle also spends way too much time defending Josiah Fox and his redesign of Chesapeake; much more than is warranted. Overall I've only cited this book where needed.


 * Cooper was the original US Navy historian first publishing this work in 1839 in two volumes. Unfortunately the original two volume set is difficult to find. The link above is for a one volume abridged edition. Over the years other authors have expanded and revised Cooper's work and a lot of modern authors have used this work as base for their own work. Maclay and Smith (listed below) appear to have heavily used this book for their own work and at times they have completely used Cooper's exact phrasing.
 * Cooper was the original US Navy historian first publishing this work in 1839 in two volumes. Unfortunately the original two volume set is difficult to find. The link above is for a one volume abridged edition. Over the years other authors have expanded and revised Cooper's work and a lot of modern authors have used this work as base for their own work. Maclay and Smith (listed below) appear to have heavily used this book for their own work and at times they have completely used Cooper's exact phrasing.


 * There is little good to say about this book if you can actually call it a book. I'm not exactly sure why Fitz-Enz used the title "Old Ironsides" as it wanders off topic at will. Indeed one whole chapter is devoted to navigation of the age.. ummm hello? can we get back to Constitution anytime soon?. This was the first book I read regarding Constitution itself and there is a fair amount of information that was useful but only later did I discover how poorly researched and full of errors it is. I was forced to use this book for one citation that I absolutely had to have. Overall this is a good reason why a retired army Colonel should not write books about naval ships.
 * There is little good to say about this book if you can actually call it a book. I'm not exactly sure why Fitz-Enz used the title "Old Ironsides" as it wanders off topic at will. Indeed one whole chapter is devoted to navigation of the age.. ummm hello? can we get back to Constitution anytime soon?. This was the first book I read regarding Constitution itself and there is a fair amount of information that was useful but only later did I discover how poorly researched and full of errors it is. I was forced to use this book for one citation that I absolutely had to have. Overall this is a good reason why a retired army Colonel should not write books about naval ships.








 * A basic good book about Constitution in a "Readers Digest" sort of way. I did not find any inaccuracies of the contents. I listed this book in the "further reading" section of the Constitution article only because it didn't tell me anything I hadn't already known. A possible caution might be that Hoyt is an extremely prolific author; publishing an average of 4 books a year for the past 30-40 years.
 * A basic good book about Constitution in a "Readers Digest" sort of way. I did not find any inaccuracies of the contents. I listed this book in the "further reading" section of the Constitution article only because it didn't tell me anything I hadn't already known. A possible caution might be that Hoyt is an extremely prolific author; publishing an average of 4 books a year for the past 30-40 years.


 * An interesting POV from the ship's Chaplain of Constitution and nicely edited by Martin. I placed this in the "Further reading" section of the Constitution article as it also didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
 * An interesting POV from the ship's Chaplain of Constitution and nicely edited by Martin. I placed this in the "Further reading" section of the Constitution article as it also didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.




 * A 48 page "travel brochure" on 36-gun and lower rated frigates by an author described in the book as an "amateur historian". More emphasis is placed on artwork and drawings than content. One interesting piece of speculation is that Chesapeake retained her 44-gun rating even after being built and was rerated to a 36 prior to the War of 1812. However, I've have yet to come across any source that would support this theory. Lardas uses typical sources of which I've read several and none of those support the 44-36 gun argument. On the other hand his reasoning does make some sense as 44-gun frigates were normally used as flagships and Chesapeake was used in that manner on her assignment to the Barbary states but ran into HMS Leopard before arriving. Time will tell if this speculation holds true. I do not recommend this book for any heavy amount of citations.
 * A 48 page "travel brochure" on 36-gun and lower rated frigates by an author described in the book as an "amateur historian". More emphasis is placed on artwork and drawings than content. One interesting piece of speculation is that Chesapeake retained her 44-gun rating even after being built and was rerated to a 36 prior to the War of 1812. However, I've have yet to come across any source that would support this theory. Lardas uses typical sources of which I've read several and none of those support the 44-36 gun argument. On the other hand his reasoning does make some sense as 44-gun frigates were normally used as flagships and Chesapeake was used in that manner on her assignment to the Barbary states but ran into HMS Leopard before arriving. Time will tell if this speculation holds true. I do not recommend this book for any heavy amount of citations.






 * A very colorful account of this historic battle. I did not find any inaccuracies contained within however, Poolman at times seems to use a bit of poetic license in describing details that I haven't read about anywhere else. What absolutely kills this book as a reliable reference is the fact that it does not contain any footnotes or a bibliography, at least in the copy I obtained. Therefore it has been relegated to further reading. A pity because it's a nice book.
 * A very colorful account of this historic battle. I did not find any inaccuracies contained within however, Poolman at times seems to use a bit of poetic license in describing details that I haven't read about anywhere else. What absolutely kills this book as a reliable reference is the fact that it does not contain any footnotes or a bibliography, at least in the copy I obtained. Therefore it has been relegated to further reading. A pity because it's a nice book.


 * An historic book widely cited by authors everywhere. Considered an authoritative work on naval matters during the War of 1812. Written as a response to William James, Roosevelt unfortunately devotes pages and pages to argument. I at times thought "Shut up Teddy and get back to the subject".
 * An historic book widely cited by authors everywhere. Considered an authoritative work on naval matters during the War of 1812. Written as a response to William James, Roosevelt unfortunately devotes pages and pages to argument. I at times thought "Shut up Teddy and get back to the subject".


 * Everything you always wanted to know about congressional arguing and cat fighting over forming the United States Navy. Includes vote counts by state for the more important acts voted upon. Extensive footnotes and bibliography. Here you learn that if it wasn't for the New England states there never would have been a Navy.
 * Everything you always wanted to know about congressional arguing and cat fighting over forming the United States Navy. Includes vote counts by state for the more important acts voted upon. Extensive footnotes and bibliography. Here you learn that if it wasn't for the New England states there never would have been a Navy.




 * An excellent book for a youngster. Simply written, simply explained and nicely illustrated.
 * An excellent book for a youngster. Simply written, simply explained and nicely illustrated.


 * Probably the most exhaustive and methodical investigation into the mysteries of the Constellation (1797) / Constellation (1854) matter. Wegner just slams and slams all of the "evidence" used to prop up the 1854 ship as the 1797 ship. Here we find forged documents and mysterious documents that never came forward from those who claimed to have them. I could hear the sledgehammer just keep dropping. In 2004 the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships updated the entry for the 1797 ship apparently to reflect the findings of Wegner.
 * Probably the most exhaustive and methodical investigation into the mysteries of the Constellation (1797) / Constellation (1854) matter. Wegner just slams and slams all of the "evidence" used to prop up the 1854 ship as the 1797 ship. Here we find forged documents and mysterious documents that never came forward from those who claimed to have them. I could hear the sledgehammer just keep dropping. In 2004 the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships updated the entry for the 1797 ship apparently to reflect the findings of Wegner.