Abstract
A significant campaign in the Paper War commenced with the appearance in 1810 of Inchiquin, the Jesuit’s Letters. Credited to ‘some unknown foreigner’, Inchiquin’s Letters purported to be private correspondence to and from an Irish priest, Inchiquin, residing in the United States. Inchiquin’s Letters was a seminal work in the Paper War, a more ambitious retort to foreign criticisms than previous American rejoinders. Responses to Inchiquin’s Letters, both British and American, also broke conventions of trans-Atlantic paper warring, making the episode an excellent study in the dynamics of Anglo-American cultural relations, a window into the shifting nationalisms of the era of the War of 1812.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Winthrop D. Jordan explained: ‘When the second war for independence came in 1812, it brought, in striking contrast to the first, no benefit to the Negro’; Jordan, White over Black: American Attitudes towards the Negro, 1550–1812 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), 331; Rosemarie Zaggari, Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).
Charles Jared Ingersoll, Recollections, Historical, Political, Biographical, and Social (Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1861), 316.
As Ingersoll’s biographer (and grandson) noted, ‘These were the years when the country was so near to drifting into open war with France, and the son evidently shared all the burning passions which then prevailed so generally against that country. He was himself a subscriber to Mathew Carey’s Democratic Journal, but Fenno’s Gazette of the United States was sent him by his father; and with this paper before him, and with the strongly Federal inclinations general at Princeton, it was almost unavoidable that the boy should be swept along with the intense patriotic passions of the day. He tells us how great a disappointment it was to him at the time that he was too young and too small for his age to wear a sword or an epaulet, or even the black cockade which many wore in their hats, at Cobbett’s suggestion, as a mark of their anti-Gallican sympathies’; William M. Meigs, The Life of Charles Jared Ingersoll, 2nd edition (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1900), 30–31. Ingersoll’s authorship of Port-Folio articles is documented in Randolph C. Randall, ‘Authors of the Port Folio Revealed by the Hall Files’, American Literature, 11 (January 1940), 402. The members of the Tuesday Club have been described as mostly ‘Federalist in politics, and all were imbued with a love of literature, and ambitious of gaining literary fame’; Harold Ellis, Joseph Dennie and His Circle: A Study in American Literature from 1792–1812, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1915), 157. Dennie’s other lawyer was Joseph Hopkinson, author of the lyrics to ‘Hail, Columbia’ (1798).
‘Europe Long Ago’, United States Magazine, and Democratic Review, 5 (January 1839), 75.
For analysis of the extreme partisanship of early republican Philadelphia, see Albrecht Koschnik, ‘Let a Common Interest Bind Us’: Association, Partisanship, and Culture in Philadelphia, 1775–1840 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007).
Charles Jared Ingersoll, A View of the Rights and Wrongs, Power and Policy, of the United States of America (Philadelphia: C. & A. Conrad & Co.; Baltimore, Conrad, Lucas & Co., 1808). Ingersoll [Some Unknown Foreigner], Inchiquin, The Jesuit’s Letters, During a Late Residence in the United States of America: Being a Fragment of a Private Correspondence Accidentally Discovered in Europe; Containing a Favourable View of the Manners, Literature, and State of Society, of the United States, and a Refutation of Many of the Asperations Cast Upon This Country, By Former Residents and Tourists (New York: I. Riley, 1810). I refer to Ingersoll’s work by its common title, Inchiquin’s Letters.
Historians have praised Ingersoll’s innovation and spirit of independence. His biographer and grandson explained that, ‘[Inchiquin’s Letters] was the very first American book … that dared to speak openly in favor of our country, and did not cringe to foreign ideas and criticisms. And not only did it not cringe, but it boldly asserted the superiority of the American character in many particulars’; Meigs, Life of Charles Jared Ingersoll, 44–45. The literary scholar Robert Spiller described Inchiquin’s Letters as a ‘direct essay upon America’s greatness’; Robert B. Spiller, ‘Brother Jonathan to John Bull’, South Atlantic Quarterly, 26 (October 1927), 351. Gordon Wood has called Ingersoll’s book ‘one of the first avowed defenses of the American national character against foreign, particularly British, criticism’. Wood refers to Ingersoll’s unlikely familial pedigree and ‘coming to terms with the emerging popular and commercial spirit’ of the age; Wood, The Rising Glory of America 1760–1820, revised edition (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990), 382.
‘Domestic Occurrences’, Port-Folio, 1 (August 22, 1801), 269. Federalists had attacked Jefferson as a ‘mammoth infidel’; Edwin Thomas Martin, Thomas Jefferson: Scientist (New York: Shuman, 1952), 2: 222. Visiting Federalist congressmen described the ‘mammoth cheese’ given to Jefferson by Cheshire, Massachusetts Baptists in 1802 as a ‘monument of human weakness and folly’; Jeffrey L. Pasley, ‘Democracy, Gentility, and Lobbying in the Early Congress,’ in Julian E. Zelizer (ed.), The American Congress: The Building of Democracy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 53.
Critics of American literature had anticipated Ingersoll’s hyperbole. Francis Jeffrey of the Edinburgh Review stated in an October 1809 review that ‘Mr Barlow … will not be the Homer of his country; and will never take his place among the enduring poets of either the old or of the new world’; Francis Jeffrey, ‘Barlow’s Columbiad’, Edinburgh Review, 16 (October 1809), 24. Fisher Ames had noted in 1800 that, ‘Excepting the writers of two able works on our politics, we have no authors. … Shall we match Joel Barlow [author of The Vision of Columbus (1787)] against Homer or Hesiod?’; The Works of Fisher Ames, vol. 2 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1854), 430. The Edinburgh Review correctly surmised that, Marshall’s monumental work would be surpassed ‘by some less ostentatious, but more tasteful and pleasing, memorial’; ‘Lives of Washington’, Edinburgh Review, 13 (October 1808), 149. In 1815, Lord Byron asked George Ticknor if Americans considered Barlow to be their Homer; Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor, vol. 1 (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1876), 59.
Ingersoll, Inchiquin’s Letters, 81, 90. Though reviewers of Inchiquin’s Letters focused on Ingersoll’s panegyrics regarding American literature, he had criticized some aspects of Barlow’s poem and found Marshall’s history prosaic (84–90). Overall, Ingersoll’s claims regarding the conservative Federalist historian and radical Republican poet distracted from his harmonic narrative. Most of Ingersoll’s American contemporaries understood Barlow’s poem and Marshall’s history as highly anticipated failures. Michael Cody, Charles Brockden Brown and the Literary Magazine: Cultural Journalism in the Early American Republic (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co, 2004), 65–66. As William Cullen Bryant explained in the North American Review, ‘The plan of the work is utterly destitute of interest [as compared with Barlow’s earlier edition]. … Nor are the additions of much value, on account of the taste in which they are composed’; Bryant, ‘Brown’s Essay on American Poetry’, North American Review, 7 (July 1818), 203.
Benjamin T. Spencer, The Quest for Nationality: An American Literary Campaign (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1957), 61. In a July 1814 letter to President Madison, Ingersoll continued his lament: ‘We read none but English books, adopt none but English ideas of law and politics’ (quoted in Meigs, Life of Charles Jared Ingersoll, 325).
John C. McCloskey, ‘The Campaign of Periodicals after the War of 1812 for National American Literature’, PMLA, 50 (March 1935), 262–273.
Steven Watts, The Republic Reborn: War and the Making of Liberal America, 1790–1820 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987).
Nicholas Guyatt contrasts early American optimism with the pervasive fear of moral decline, and even national collapse, after 1800; Guyatt, Providence and the Invention of the United States, 1607–1876 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 159–161.
The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, vol. 3 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983), 187.
‘Situation of England’, The Yankee, 1 (May 15, 1812).
Southey, ‘History and Present States of America’, Quarterly Review, 2 (November 1809), 309–327; ‘National Prejudice; or, the Reviewers Reviewed’, The Balance and State Journal, 1 (June 18, 1811), 193.
‘M. Perrin du Luc’s Travels’, American Watchman and Delaware Republican, 3:165 (March 6, 1811), 1.
American Watchman and Delaware Republican, 3 (March 6, 1811), 1.
‘INCHIQUIN, the Jesuit’s Letters, during a late Residence in the United States’, The Cynick, 1 (November 16, 1811), 133, 136, 137, 132, 136–138.
Charles Caldwell, ‘Review of [Charles Jared Ingersoll’s] Inchiquin, The Jesuit’s Letters’, Port-Folio, 5 (April 1811), 300–317 and (May 1811), 385–399; Caldwell, ‘Review of Inchiquin’, 302.
On Caldwell’s medical career, see Edward Clarke, H. Bigelow, S. Gross, T. Thomas, and J. S. Billings, A Century of American Medicine, 1776–1876 (Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea, 1876), 361–362.
‘The Stranger in New York’, Port-Folio, 6 (December 1811), 586.
The Port-Folio’s pre-1812 shift towards an increasing nationalism and measured Anglophobia has sometimes gone unnoticed by historians: ‘Before the war [the Port-Folio] … flew conservative colors under the editorship of Joseph Dennie. … After Dennie’s death and especially after the Quarterly Review’s ‘filthy invective’ against Ingersoll’s Inchiquin [in January 1814], the Port Folio brought its guns to bear upon England’; Bradford Perkins, Castlereagh and Adams: England and the United States, 1812–1823 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965), 188. Harold Ellis, an early twentieth-century biographer of Dennie, recognized the change in Dennie and the Port-Folio: ‘Dennie, in his later years, distressed as they were, seems to have come into a saner state of mind regarding his countrymen. Absurdities like “authour” and strictures on the American language and manners disappeared after 1808. How much of the change of sentiment expressed in the pages of the Port Folio from 1809 to 1812 is due to the suggestion of the proprietors and how much was uttered by those who assisted Dennie during his period of illness is a matter of conjecture, but a real change, unaccompanied by any spirit of compromise, is certain’; Ellis, Joseph Dennie and His Circle, 208. For an analysis of pre-War 1812 Anglophobia, see Lawrence A. Peskin, ‘Conspiratorial Anglophobia and the War of 1812’, Journal of American History, 98 (December 2011), 647–669.
‘Criticism — The Columbiad, a Poem by Joel Barlow’, Port-Folio 1 (January 1809), 65, 61.
‘The Columbiad’, Port-Folio, 1 new series (May 1809), 432–433.
For the metamorphosis of the Port-Folio, see Catherine O’Donnell Kaplan, Men of Letters in the Early Republic: Cultivating Forums of Citizenship (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008), Chapter 7, ‘The Port Folio Remade, 1806–1812’.
‘Strictures on Volney’s “View of the Soil and Climate of the United States”’, Port-Folio, 4 (December 1810), 587–592.
Neal L. Edgar, A History and Bibliography of American Magazines 1810–1820 (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1975), 31, 46.
‘Inchiquin and O’Scapey’, Federal Republican and Commercial Gazette, 8 (November 15, 1813), 2.
‘Inchiquin’s Criticism on Barlow’s Columbiad’, Alexandria Daily Gazette, 11 (Tuesday, April 16, 1811), 2.
‘Official Style’, Bennington Newsletter, 3 (October 19, 1813), 1.
‘A Short Criticism on Inchiquin’s Letters’, Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 (August 11, 1814), 2–3. For the source of Ingersoll’s plagiarism, see Fr. Noel and Fr. Delaplace, Leçons de literature et de morale, volume 1 (Paris: Chez le Normant, 1804), 531–532.
‘Inchiquin and O’Scapey,’ Federal Republican and Commercial Gazette 8 (November 22, 1813), 2.
‘Inchiquin, the Jesuit’s Letters’, Northern Whig, 8 (July 30, 1816), 3.
‘To the Editor of the Analectic Magazine’, Analectic Magazine, 3 (May 1814), 405, 406, 409. Herbert G. Eldridge believes that this article’s author was James Kirke Paulding; Eldridge, ‘The Paper War between England and America: The Inchiquin Episode, 1810–1815’, Journal of American Studies, 16 (1982), 59.
John Lambert, Travels through Canada, and the United States of North America in the Years 1806, 1807, & 1808, 3rd edition, vol. 1 (London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1816), ‘Preface to the Second Edition’, vii, viii.
‘Beaujour’s United States of N. America’, Critical Review, 6 (December 1814), 590, 592.
‘View of the points to be discussed with America’, Anti-Jacobin Review, 47 (July 1814), 38–46; ‘Lambert’s Travels through Canada’, Anti-Jacobin Review, 46 (March 1814), 252.
‘Tracts on American Politics’, British Review, 1 (March 1811), 145, 131.
‘America — Orders in Council, &c.’, Quarterly Review, 7 (March 1812), 33.
Barrow, ‘Inchiquen’s Favourable View of the United States’, Quarterly Review, 10 (January 1814), 494–539. Attribution of the article to Barrow is given on the ‘Quarterly Review Archive’; Jonathan Cutmore (ed), www.rc.umd.edu/reference/qr/index/20.html, accessed 10 June, 2010. Robert Southey, commonly thought to the author of the ‘Inchiquen’ article by Americans, denied authorship of the article in a terse letter to the North American Review: ‘I did not write the criticism of Inchiquin’s Letters; and every body in England who knows the Quarterly Review, knows that I am not the Editor of it’ (‘Miscellaneous and Literary Intelligence’, North American Review, 1 [September 1815], 443).
Barrow’s approach was typical for reviewers of his generation. Sydney Smith of the Edinburgh Review quipped, ‘I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so’; quoted in Hesketh Pearson, The Smith of Smiths: Being The Life, Wit and Humor of Sydney Smith (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1934), 54. The Quarterly Review even misspelled the title of Ingersoll’s book as ‘Inchiquen’.
Barrow, ‘Inchiquen’s Favourable View’, 500. Barrow was referring to a December 1796 House of Representatives debate over the response to Washington’s last State of the Union speech. The House debated for three days whether to include language describing the United States as the ‘freest and most enlightened nation in the world’; Abridgement of the Debates in Congress from 1789 to 1856, vol. 2 (New York: A. Appleton and Company, 1858), 28–33. See Joseph Eaton, ‘“Freest and Most Enlightened”: Washington, the French Revolution, and Strange Origins of American Exceptionalism’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the British American Nineteenth Century Historians (BrANCH) annual Conference, Madingley Hall, University of Cambridge, October 2011.
Forster, Life of Landor, I: 361, as quoted in William B. Cairns, British Criticisms of American Writings 1783–1815 (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1918), 11.
Hill Shine and Helen Chadwick Shine, The Quarterly Review Under Gifford: Identification of Contributors 1809–1824 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1949), 39.
‘Our character defended against the Quarterly Review, NO. IV’, Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 (August 25, 1814), 3.
‘Our character defended against the Quarterly Review’, Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 (August 20, 1814), 2. ‘Our character defended against the Quarterly Review. NO. VII’, Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 (August 29, 1814), 3.
‘Our character defended against the Quarterly Reviews. NO. II’, Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 (August 22, 1814), 2–3.
‘Our character defended against the Quarterly Review. NO. V’, Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 (August 26, 1814), 2.
‘Our character defended against the Quarterly Review. NO. VI’, Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 (August 27, 1814), 3.
‘Our character defended against the Quarterly Review. NO. VII’, Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 (August 29, 1814), 3.
Donald R. Hickey, ‘Review of Richard Buel, America on the Brink: How the Political Struggle over the War of 1812 Almost Destroyed the Young Republic (New York: Palgrave, 2005)’, Journal of American History, 92 (December 2005), 968.
Quoted in Walter Lord, The Dawn’s Early Light (New York: W.W. Norton, 1972), 176.
Benjamin Elliott, A Sketch of the Means and Benefits of Prosecuting the War against Britain (Charleston, SC: John L. Wilson, 1814), 34.
Ralph M. Aderman, Letters of James Kirke Paulding (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1962), 170.
James Kirke Paulding, The United States and England: Being a Reply to the Criticism on Inchiquin’s Letters Contained in the Quarterly Review for January 1814 (New York: A. H. Inskeep, 1815), Advertisement, n.p, 112, 113.
‘Lay of the Scottish Fiddle’, Quarterly Review, 10 (January 1814), 463–467.
Tudor, ‘United States and England’, North American Review, 1 (May 1815), 91.
William Austin, Letters from London: Written during the Years 1802 & 1803 (Boston: W. Pelham, 1804), 169. Just as predictions of America’s decline rattled American readers, Britons noted American forecasts of Britain’s dissolution with anger. The March 1811 issue of the British Review reported that Jefferson had forecasted the impending destruction of Great Britain in 1807 (‘Tracts on American Politics’, British Review, and London Critical Journal, 1 [March 1811], 121).
Finn Pollard, The Literary Quest for an American Character (New York, London: Routledge, 2009), 166.
Bradford Perkins, ‘George Canning, Great Britain, and the United States, 1807–1809’, American Historical Review, 63 (October 1957).
Dwight, Remarks on the Review of Inchiquin’s Letters, published in the Quarterly Review; addressed to the Right Honourable George Canning, by an inhabitant of New-England (Boston: Samuel T. Armstrong, 1815), 13, 14–15. In contrast, as a young man, Dwight had declared himself ‘an American, a republican, and a Presbyterian’; quoted in Kenneth Silverman, Timothy Dwight (New York: Twayne, 1969), 141.
Dwight, Remarks on the Review of Inchiquin’s Letters, 16. Jennifer Clark provides more examples of Americans who continued to depict Britain as the defender of liberty. ‘The War of 1812: American Nationalism and Rhetorical Images of Britain’, War and Society, 1 (May 1994), 4–6, 11.
John Hadley, an Englishman, and Thomas Godfrey, a Philadelphian, independently developed similar navigational quadrants around 1730. The ‘Hadley or Godfrey?’ question troubled Anglo-American cultural relations at least into the 1820s. For example, see ‘Godfrey’s Quadrant’, Niles’ Weekly Register, 13 (September 27, 1817), 68.
‘Dwight is never constructive or incisive. … In the end, Remarks never rises above the din of the fracas into which it was cast. It appeals to reason and aesthetics are insufficient to hide its anger, its partisan character, and its insecurity. Dwight was stooping low indeed, and had this been his first literary effort instead of his final contribution the history of American literature would have passes him by with little more than a footnote’; John R. Fitzmier, New England’s Moral Legislator: Timothy Dwight, 1752–1817 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998), 74. For a sympathetic treatment of Dwight, see Larzer Ziff, Writing in the New Nation: Prose, Print and Politics in the Early United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), Chapter 7, ‘The Persisting Past’, 126–150, especially 133.
Leon Howard, The Connecticut Wits (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1943), 395.
As quoted in George B. Kirsch, Baseball in Blue and Gray: The National Pastime during the Civil War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 3.
Marshall Foletta, Coming to Terms with Democracy: Federalist Intellectuals and the Shaping of an American Culture (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 80. A scholar of the Inchiquin episode describes Tudor’s response as ‘perhaps the ablest among an otherwise undistinguished volley of rejoinders’; Eldridge, ‘Paper War’, 64. The very first article in the first issue of the North American Review was an article on ‘Books Relating to America’, specifically books on early Virginia, some indication that the new periodical promised to give more than New England perspectives. ‘Books Relating to America’, North American Review, I (May 1815), 1–14.
Julius H. Ward, ‘The North American Review, 1815–1830’, North American Review, 201 (February 1915), 124.
Leonard Tennenhouse, The Importance of Feeling English: American Literature and the British Diaspora, 1750–1850 (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007), 101.
Roy Benjamin Clark, William Gifford: Tory Satirist, Critic, and Editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930), 30.
‘American Literature’, Cobbett’s Political Register, 29:6 (November 11, 1815), 176. The Daily National Intelligencer reprinted Cobbett’s article; Vol. 4 (March 11, 1816), 2.
William Cobbett, ‘On the Political Effects Produced in America by the Peace of Ghent’, Cobbett’s Political Register, 27:22 (June 3, 1815), 673–674.
‘The Colonial Policy of Great Britain’, British Critic, 6 (December 1816), 620.
House of Lords Report on ‘Naval Administration’, February 21, 1815; Thomas Curson Hansard, The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time, 29 (London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1815), 905–913.
‘Remarks on the Review of Inchiquin’s Letters’, Port-Folio 6 (August 1815), 154.
‘Remarks on the Review of Inchiquin’s Letters’, Port-Folio, 6 (August 1815), 156.
‘Remarks on the Review of Inchiquin’s Letters’, Port-Folio, 6 (August 1815), 157.
‘Naval and Military Chronicle of the United States’, Port-Folio, 6 (December 1815), 4.
‘Seppings on Ship-Building’, Analectic Magazine, 6 (December 1815), 451, 458.
Norval Neil Luxon, Niles’ Weekly Register: News Magazine of the Nineteenth Century (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1947), 164. For Niles’ Anglophobia, see Luxon, Niles’ Weekly Register, chapter, ‘Anglo-American Relations’, 164–193.
‘War against England’, Niles’ Weekly Register, 2 (June 27, 1812), 283.
‘The Constitution and the Guerriere’, Niles’ Weekly Register, 3 (September 12, 1812).
‘War against England’, Niles’ Weekly Register, 2 (June 27, 1812), 284.
‘Reasons against the War!’, Niles’ Weekly Register, 5 (October 30, 1813), 144.
‘War Events’, Niles’ Weekly Register, 8 (June 17, 1815), 198.
‘Dartmoor Prison’, Niles’ Weekly Register, 8 (July 8, 1815), 328.
[A British Traveller], The Colonial Policy of Great Britain (London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1816), xxv, 34, 20, 17.
‘Review of the “Colonial Policy of Great Britain”’, Niles’ Weekly Register, 11 (September 14, 1816), 38–41; ‘Criticism. — The Colonial Policy of Great Britain’, Port-Folio, 4 (July 1817), 66.
‘Disputes with America, By a Merchant of the Old School’, Edinburgh Review, 19 (February 1812), 291, 303.
‘War with America’, Edinburgh Review, 20 (November, 1812), 460. Duncan Campbell makes the same point about British cultural relations with Americans: ‘Strange as it may seem, Britain at times enjoyed better relationships (and not just at the diplomatic level) with European states such as Portugal, Spain and Prussia’; Campbell, Unlikely Allies: Britain, America and the Victorian Origins of the Special Relationship (London: Continuum, 2008), 5.
‘Disputes with America’, Edinburgh Review, 19 (February 1812), 291.
The Life and Letters of Washington Irving, ed. Pierre M. Irving, vol. 1 (London: Richard Bentley, 1862), 248–249.
‘Literary Intelligence’, Analectic Magazine, 2 (October 1813), 346.
‘Conquest of Granada’, Quarterly Review, 43 (May 1830), 55–80.
William Charvat, ‘Francis Jeffrey in America’, New England Quarterly, 14 (June 1941), 312, 324. Charvat explained that details about Jeffrey’s trip were ‘suppressed by his official biographer’, Lord Cockburn (Charvat, 309).
‘Biographical Sketch of William Gifford, Esq’, Monthly Anthology, and Boston Review, 1 (December 1803), 63–71.
In his memoirs, Robert Southey gave a recollection of his early impressions of the importance of the Westminster play, and the students selected to participate. Westminster School expelled Southey for denouncing flogging in the school paper. Charles Cuthbert Southey (ed.), The Life and Correspondence of Robert Southey (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1849), 143–144.
The London Gentleman’s Magazine reprinted the prologue. ‘Prologus in Phormionem, Fabulam ab Alumnis Reg. Schol. Westm. acclam, A.D. 1814’, Gentleman’s Magazine (April 1815), 351–352.
‘Westminster Epilogue’, North American Review, 2 (November 1815), 43.
Review of ‘Pillet’s View of England’, North American Review, 3 (May 1816), 62.
‘The Quarterly Review of Birkbeck’s Travels’, Camden Gazette, 3 (January 28, 1819), 3.
‘British Abuse of American Manners’, Port-Folio 1 (May 1816), 403.
‘Strictures on Moore, The Poet’, Port-Folio, 6 (November 1815), 506–512.
Barrow, ‘Inchiquen’s Favourable View of the United States’, 501. Rosemarie Zaggari, Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 30–37.
[Robert Southey] ‘Don Manuel Alvarez Espriella’, Letters from England, vol. 2 (New York: David Longworth, 1808), 31–32.
Anthony Dugdale, J. J. Fueser, and J. Celso de Castro Alves, Yale, Slavery and Abolition (New Haven: Amistad Committee), 12–14. The Yale report referenced Larry E. Tise’s seminal work, Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America, 1701–1840 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987), 45.
Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and 1780–1860 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998), 76.
Melish, Disowning Slavery, Chapter 5, ‘“To Abolish the Black Man”: Enacting the Antislavery Promise’. In another work, Dwight acknowledged the free black population in New Haven, depicting them as immoral and indigent; Dwight, Statistical Account of the City of New Haven (New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1811), 57–58. In her Making Slavery History: Abolitionism and the Politics of Memory in Massachusetts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), Margot Minardi finds discussions of the local history of slavery to have been central to historical memory and commemorations of the American Revolution in Massachusetts. For a study of later proslavery nationalists, see Robert E. Bonner, Mastering America: Southern Slaveholders and the Crisis of American Nationhood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
As Alexander H. Everett related to Jared Sparks in 1821: ‘It is a work of national importance and a most effective instrument for all good purposes. … I doubt whether the president of the U.S. has a higher trust to be accountable for the Editor of the N.A.’; quoted in Eileen Ka-May Cheng, The Plain and Noble Garb of Truth: Nationalism and Impartiality in American Historical Writing, 1784–1860 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2008), 41.
C. Edward Skeen, 1816: America Rising (Lexington: University of Kentucky, 2003), 33.
Sydney Smith, ‘America’, Edinburgh Review, 33 (January 1820), 79.
‘Political Portraits, With Pen and Pencil. No. XVI. Charles Jared Ingersoll’, The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, 6 (October 1839), 342, 340.
Niles’ Weekly Register, 10 (August 17, 1816), 401. ‘Emigration — Again’, Niles’ Weekly Register, 10 (August 24, 1816), 419.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2012 Joseph Eaton
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eaton, J. (2012). Inchiquin’s Letters and Anglo-American Nationalism. In: The Anglo-American Paper War. Britain and the World. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137283962_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137283962_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-33336-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-28396-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)