The 30 Minute Rule begins January 8 at 7:00 PM EST. An Initial Bid Must Be Placed By January 8 at 6:00 PM EST To Participate After 6:00 PM EST
Lengthy ALS signed “J. Fenimore Cooper,” four pages on two adjoining sheets, 8 x 12.5, no date [May 20-27, 1848]. Detailed handwritten letter to editors George Pope Morris and Nathaniel Parker Willis of The Home Journal, which finds Cooper writing in response to a recently published letter by author Henry Onderdonk, Jr., who criticized Judge Jones's History of George Washington. In part: "I confess that the reasoning of Mr. Onderdonk does not strike me as at all conclusive against the credit that is due to the history of Judge Jones. No one of his objections is unanswerable; and most of them manifest a bias to regard only one side of the question. That Judge Jones was mistaken in supposing that General Woodhull was stopped on his march to join Washington by the battle of the 26th, I was aware at the time I copied the statement. To believe, however, that his mistake in this respect, contributes to show that his manuscript is 'utterly worthless as an historical document,' involves the necessity of believing that 'Marshall's Life of Washington' is also 'utterly worthless, ' for something very like the same reason. These sweeping charges seldom convince. Judge Jones, in this particular, gave what appears to have been the prevailing opinion of the time; and he gave it temperately, without any imputation on Gen. Woodhull's conduct. Now, Marshall, the highest American authority has firstly much the same idea, with the addition of supposing that General Woodhull remain at, or near Jamaica, contrary to his orders. All this has been explained since, but it was not until 1804, that even Judge Marshall was made aware of the nature of the particular duty on which Gen. Woodhull was employed. The mistake of Judge Marshall, and its correction, is given at length, p. 413 in Thompson's History of Long Island.
This is the only circumstance [addressed] by Mr Onderdonk that appears to me to require a serious answer. The historical fact involved, is of no great general importance, and is of none whatever as connected with the particular inquiry before us. Judge Jones was mistaken on a very immaterial fact, so far as the main history of events was concerned, in common with Judge Marshall. He is in respectable company, and I question if Marshall's Life of Washington will lose its high character on account of the mistake into which its author fell. Mr Onderdonk tells us that, in quoting Judge Jones, he italicises the mistakes of the writer. I will follow him, seriation, after pointing out the errors connected with what was certainly a mistake in supposing that Gen. Woodhull wished to join Washington, he Italicise the word 'quarters,' though I can not see that he makes any comments on its use. If Judge Jones miscalled a halt 'quarters,' it is not a very grave offence in an unprinted work.
The next objection that Mr Onderdonk raises is to the statement of Judge Jones that the dragoons were sent to scout certain prisoners from Jamaica to Brooklyn, 'The evening after the battle. Mr. Onderdonk thinks there were no prisoners, and says, correctly enough, that the dragoons did not arrive until the evening of the day after the battle.
As respects the first objection, there might have been prisoners of whom Mr Onderdonk knows nothing. Then a party might have been sent under a misapprehension of the fact where the prisoners actually made were. Such things as useless marches and countermarches are of constant occurrence in war. What should we think of the historian who denied that Gen. Taylor countermarched from near Victoria all the way to Monterey, in order to aid in repelling an attack on Saltillo, on the ground that Saltillo was not attacked!
Judge Jones evidently was aware of the charges against the English, in connection with the death of Gen. Woodhull, and it seems to me that he has given his statement expressly in reference to these charges. Now the historian and the officer commanding these dragoons were pretty nearly connected. They saw each other constantly, and, under the circumstances, I take it for granted that Judge Jones got many of his facts from Oliver De Lancey himself, and this among others. It was of no moment in any sense, except to the truth, whether the dragoons were sent to escort prisoners, or to seize Gen. Woodhull, and why should Judge Jones state the fact unless he had authority for it? Mr Onderdonk gives no authority for his assertion that the dragoons went out to take Gen. Woodhull.
As for the evening after the battle,' admitting it to be a mistake, it is merely a mistake of a day in a date in a matter of very little moment. I confess, however, that I understood the writer to mean the evening of the next day, the omission of the words 'of the day' being just such an error as an unprinted work would be apt to contain. An uncorrected work should always be received with large allowances. Very few unpracticed writers avoid such errors, for errors of mere oversight. The expression was colloquial, and as many persons would probably understand it in one sense, as in the other.
The use of the words 'generously granted, in reference to the 'quarter' given to the party with Gen. Woodhull, convinces me that Judge Jones wrote with the charges distinctly in his mind. Mr Onderdonk Italicises the words, and answers them by showing how the '(Highlanders) had bayonetted the Americans the previous day on the field! Men in the heat of battle do many things they would not dream of doing in their cooler moments. After showing how these Highlanders slaughtered the Americans, Mr Onderdonk, not very logically, to say nothing of any other quality, adds that the facts 'show that the British Army regarded the Americans with much the same feeling as Mr Cooper does the anti-renters. I quote the passage, to give its writer the full benefit of his mode of illustrating. 'The manuscript speaks of Woodhull's having one wound on the arm, 'says Mr Onderdonk.' There are persons now leaving, who have heard an eye witness, and who watched at his bed side that night, say his arm was hacked as a butcher would hack a shin of beef. There were seven gashes on the arm, but there may have been one deeper than the rest.'” In fine condition.
Onderdonk's first letter was published in the May 20, 1848 issue of The Home Journal, with Cooper evidently writing this offered letter before he had a chance to read Onderdonk's second letter of May 15th, which was also published in The Home Journal the following week on May 27th. Onderdonk's chief criticisms concerned factual errors found in Judge Jones's unpublished History and, in particular, with the controversy surrounding General Woodhull's failure to join Washington. Cooper's letter was published in the June 3, 1848, issue of The Home Journal, although over 20 manuscript revisions do not appear in the published text. It details the events contributing to Woodhull's failure to join Washington and, most importantly, to the circumstances of his death. Cooper's argument draws heavily from his maritime experiences and is filled with examples of conduct aboard fighting ships in time of battle. While Cooper's facts are not always accurate, the letter is informative and important to our understanding of General Woodhull's conduct. Cooper states that for Onderdonk to claim that Judge Jones's manuscript ‘History’ is worthless because of its few inaccuracies, then Marshall's ‘Life of Washington’ must also be considered worthless. He goes on to refute the criticisms of Onderdonk, citing examples of the kind of slaughter that generally goes on during a battle. Cooper also responds to Onderdonk's charge against Oliver De Lancey, details many of the incidents that went on at the time of the Battle of Long Island, and attempts to give new insight into Woodhull's failure to march to Washington's side when needed.
This item is Pre-Certified by PSA/DNA
Buy a third-party letter of authenticity for
$100.00
*This item has been pre-certified by a trusted third-party authentication service, and by placing a bid on this item, you agree to accept the opinion of this authentication service. If you wish to have an opinion rendered by a different authenticator of your choosing, you must do so prior to your placing of any bid. RR Auction is not responsible for differing opinions submitted 30 days after the date of the sale.
