| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Navy of the American revolution : Its administration, its policy, and its achievements
Author: Paullin, Charles Oscar
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Navy of the American revolution : Its administration, its policy, and its achievements" ***
REVOLUTION ***
Transcriber’s Note
Italic text displayed as: _italic_
THE NAVY OF THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION
The University of Chicago
FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER
The Navy of the
American Revolution
Its Administration, its Policy and
its Achievements
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty of the
Graduate School of Arts and Literature
In Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of History
By
CHARLES OSCAR PAULLIN
CHICAGO
1906
COPYRIGHT, 1906
BY
THE BURROWS BROTHERS COMPANY
REPUBLICAN PRINTING COMPANY
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA
PREFACE
Several narrative accounts of the navy of the American Revolution
have been written. These usually form the introductory part of a
history of the American Navy since 1789. The earliest of these
accounts is that of Thomas Clark, published in 1814, and probably
the best that of James Fenimore Cooper, first printed in 1839. Later
narratives are rather more popular than Cooper’s. Many sources of
information, which were not accessible to the earlier writers, and
were not much used by the later, were drawn upon in the writing of
this book. Moreover, the information that is here presented is of a
somewhat different sort from that of previous writers; and the method
of treatment is new.
This book is written from the point of view of the naval
administrators; hitherto, historians have written from the point of
view of the naval officers. Their narratives treat almost exclusively
of the doings at sea, the movements of armed vessels, and the details
of sea fights. They have the advantage of dealing primarily with
picturesque, and sometimes dramatic, events. Their accounts, however,
lack unity, since they consist of a series of detached incidents.
In the first place an attempt has been here made to restore the
naval administrative machinery of the Revolution. The center of this
narrative is the origin, organization, and work of naval committees,
secretaries of marine, navy boards, and naval agents. Next, inasmuch
as the men who served as naval executives administered the laws
relating to naval affairs, and indeed often prepared these laws
before their adoption by the legislative authorities, it was thought
best to give a fairly complete _resume_ of the naval legislation of
the Revolution. Those laws with which the naval administrators were
chiefly concerned have received most attention. The legislation with
reference to prize courts and privateering has been treated more
briefly. As the privateers do not, properly speaking, form a part of
the Revolutionary navy, no attempt to write their history has been
made. In order that the subject may be seen in its true relations,
some statistics and other interesting facts concerning this industry
have, however, been introduced. An account of the State Navies is now
given for the first time.
Since naval committees, navy boards, and naval agents issued written
orders to the naval commanders prescribing the time, place, and
manner of their cruises, it has seemed logical and proper to consider
the naval policy of the administrators, and the movements of the
armed vessels. So detailed an account of naval movements, as would
be given by those writers who proceed from the point of view of
the doings of the naval officers, would obviously not be expected
in this book. My plan has been to describe the various classes of
naval movements, to present the sum total of their results, and to
give briefly the details of a few typical cruises and sea fights.
The cruises of the American vessels were much alike; they were minor
affairs, and many of them scarcely merit individual treatment.
It is evident that one who proposes to write the history of the
navy of the American Revolution from the point of view which I
have described, will not only avoid excessive detail in respect to
individual naval achievements, but will be particularly determined
not to allow their brilliancy or their dramatic quality to fix the
amount of detail with which each shall be narrated. For instance,
several historians have been inclined to dwell at some length upon
the brilliant and picturesque achievements of John Paul Jones.
Sometimes they have devoted more than one-third of their narratives
of the Continental navy to this hero, undoubtedly the greatest naval
officer of the Revolution. As a result, the pictures which they have
presented are somewhat distorted, and many brave sea officers have
had scant justice done their gallant services. An attempt is made
in this book to present a better balanced narrative, and to make a
juster estimate of the work of the Revolutionary navy. The scope and
method of treatment adopted by the author has compelled a certain
economy of phrase, precision of statement, and sharpness of outline.
I am very grateful to the many persons who have assisted me. Space
does not permit me to thank each of them by name. I am under
special obligations to the librarians and officials of the Library
of Congress, the Library of the Department of the Navy, the Bureau
of Rolls and Library of the Department of State, the State Library
of Massachusetts, the Office of the Massachusetts State Archives,
the Boston Public Library, the Boston Athenaeum, the library of
Harvard University, the State Library of Rhode Island, the Rhode
Island Historical Society, the State Library of Connecticut,
the Connecticut Historical Society, the Pennsylvania Historical
Society, the State Library of Virginia, the Virginia Historical
Society, the Office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina, the
Charleston (South Carolina) Public Library, and the Library of the
University of Chicago. Far more than to any one else, I am indebted
to Professor John Franklin Jameson, Director of the Department of
Historical Research in the Carnegie Institution of Washington. I
have had the advantage of Professor Jameson’s extensive knowledge
of bibliography, his fruitful suggestions as to treatment, and his
painstaking care in reading and criticising my manuscript. Parts of
the narrative, somewhat popularized, have appeared in the Proceedings
of the United States Naval Institute and the Sewanee Review.
C. O. P.
Washington, D. C.
March 1, 1906.
CONTENTS
THE CONTINENTAL NAVY
CHAPTER I.—The Naval Committee.
The need in 1775 for an army and for a navy 31
Agitation for a navy outside of Congress 32
Agitation for a navy in Congress 34
The first naval legislation 35
Appointment of the Naval Committee 38
First work of the Naval Committee 38
Reconstitution of the Naval Committee 38
John Adams’s description of the Naval Committee 39
The organization and decline of the Naval Committee 40
Growth in Congress of naval sentiment 41
Naval legislation under the Naval Committee 42
The procuring of a fleet 51
The appointment of officers 52
The first naval expedition 55
_Résumé_ of the work of the Naval Committee 60
CHAPTER II.—The Fleets of Washington and Arnold.
Fitting out of the “Hannah” 61
Fitting out of Washington’s “Boston fleet” 62
Washington’s opinion of his commanders 64
Services rendered by Washington’s “Boston fleet” 65
Broughton and Selman’s raid on Prince Edward island 66
The disposition of Washington’s prizes 67
The delay in bringing them to trial 68
History of the fleet after the evacuation of Boston 69
Washington’s “New York fleet” 70
Beginning of the fleet on lakes Champlain and George 71
Its increase in the summer of 1776 72
The work of Benedict Arnold 73
The British fleet on the Lakes 76
The battle of Lake Champlain, October 11-13, 1776 77
Results of the naval campaign on the Lakes 77
CHAPTER III.—The Organization of the Marine Committee.
The maritime interests of New England 79
Naval enterprise in Rhode Island 80
The naval situation in Congress, 1775-76 81
The Rhode Island instructions 81
The debate in Congress thereon 82
Postponement of action on instructions 83
Favorable action by Congress, December 11, 1775 85
Decision of Congress to build thirteen frigates 85
Appointment of the Marine Committee 86
The Marine Committee absorbs the Naval Committee 87
The organization and pay of the Marine Committee 87
Its chairmen 88
Other valuable members 90
Naval agents for building the Continental frigates 90
Prize agents 93
Continental agents 95
Aid rendered the Marine Committee 95
Navy Board at Philadelphia 96
Navy Board at Boston 97
Designations of the boards 99
The organization of the boards 100
The personnel of the boards 101
Salaries 102
Enumeration of the principal agents of
the Marine Committee 103
Minor agents 103
CHAPTER IV.—The Work of the Navy Boards and the Marine Committee.
Lack of system in the Naval Department of the Revolution 104
Examples 105
Work and duties of the navy boards 107
Men and materials needed in building a ship 110
Provisions needed in fitting out a ship 112
Division of labor among the naval commissioners 112
The heavy work of the Boston Board 113
Two-fold duties of the Marine Committee 115
Administrative duties of the Marine Committee 116
Naval uniform 117
Communications of the Marine Committee 118
Reports of the Marine Committee 120
Naval legislation under the Marine Committee 121
Naval increases 121
Naval appointments and promotions 123
Relative rank 125
Captures and the sharing of prizes 126
Privateers 127
Naval pay 128
Naval pensions 129
Courts-martial and courts of enquiry 131
Important naval trials 133
The case of Commodore Esek Hopkins 134
Provision for the fleet of Count D’Estaing 139
The Marine Committee as a consular bureau 139
CHAPTER V.—The Conditions of the Continental Naval Service.
The recent revolution in navies and naval conditions 141
Constancy of the principles of naval strategy 143
Maritime conditions in America in 1775, and in 1900 144
Difficulties in procuring seamen during the Revolution 144
The privateers of the Revolution 147
State navies 152
The naval defence of America 153
Naval stations of the Americans 154
Naval stations of the British 155
Comparison of the British and American navies 156
Weakness of the American navies 159
Diffusion of authority in naval administration 160
CHAPTER VI.—Movements of the Continental Fleet under the Marine
Committee.
Work of the fleet of a non-military character 161
Classification of military operations 162
Primary naval operations 163
Enumeration of secondary operations 164
Defence of American commerce 164
Coöperation with the army 166
The striking of the enemy’s lines of communication 167
Commerce-destroying 169
The threatening and attacking of the enemy’s coasts 173
A naval plan of Robert Morris 174
The Marine Committee and its plans 176
Success and failure of the navy 177
The navy of the Revolution and of the Spanish-American war 179
CHAPTER VII.—The Board of Admiralty.
Defects of the Marine Committee 181
Criticism of the administration of Congress 182
A new system of Executives 184
Criticism of the Naval Department by Washington and Jay 184
Establishment of a Board of Admiralty, October, 1779 187
Powers and duties of the Board of Admiralty 188
Salaries 189
Selection of commissioners of Admiralty 190
Francis Lewis and William Ellery 193
Congress and the Board of Admiralty 194
Work of the Board of Admiralty 195
Decrease in naval machinery 195
Reports of the Board of Admiralty 196
Naval legislation under the Board of Admiralty 197
The granting of naval commissions by the states 201
The American navy and British models 202
Court of appeals for prize cases 203
The fleet under the Board of Admiralty 203
Embarrassments of the Board of Admiralty 204
Success and failure of the fleet 205
Discontinuance of the Board of Admiralty 208
Defects of the Board of Admiralty 209
CHAPTER VIII.—The Secretary of Marine and the Agent of Marine.
The two factions during the Revolution 210
Supremacy of the “dispersive school” 211
The “concentrative school” in 1780 212
Agitation for administrative reform 213
The success of the “concentrative school” 214
Establishment of the office of Secretary of Marine,
February, 1781 216
Duties of the Secretary of Marine 216
Appointment of McDougall as Secretary of Marine 217
Failure to obtain a Secretary of Marine 218
Robert Morris and the naval business 218
Reorganization of the Naval Department 220
The Agent of Marine 223
Robert Morris as Agent of Marine 226
The organization of the Naval Department under Morris 227
Reports of the Agent of Marine 228
Naval legislation under the Agent of Marine 228
The court-martialing of three seamen 230
Morris and the control of the fleet 234
The strength of the navy 235
Success and failure of the fleet 235
The cruise of the “Alliance,” 1782-1783 236
The capture of the “Trumbull” by the “Iris” 238
Attempts of Morris to increase the navy 239
Morris’s views after the treaty of peace 244
Congress goes out of the naval business 245
Settling of the naval accounts 245
Disposing of the naval vessels 247
Retirement of the Agent of Marine 250
The end of the naval business 250
CHAPTER IX.—Naval Duties of American Representatives in Foreign
Countries.
Mutual interests of the United States and France 252
Duties of the Naval Office at Paris 252
Personnel of the Naval Office 254
Communication with the Naval Office 255
Agents of the Naval Office 256
Appointment and recommendation of officers 257
Privateers 260
The purchase and construction of vessels 261
The fitting out of vessels 265
The trial of prize cases 266
American prisoners 267
Breaches of neutrality 273
Miscellaneous duties 274
The Naval Office a channel of naval intelligence 276
Naval plans of the Naval Office 276
Plan of the Committee of Foreign Affairs 278
CHAPTER X.—Naval Duties of American Representatives in Foreign
Countries. Continued.
Work of the Naval Office in 1777 281
Attempts to obtain the freedom of French ports 282
The first prizes of the “Reprisal” 283
Difficulties between the English and the French governments 284
The American Commissioners and the French government 285
The cruise of the “Reprisal,” February, 1777 286
The cruise of Conyngham in the “Surprise” 287
The cruise of the “Reprisal,” “Lexington,” and “Dolphin” 287
Strained relations between the Commissioners and the French
Court 289
The cruise of Conyngham in the “Revenge” 290
Departure of the “Reprisal” and the “Lexington” 291
Naval movements in 1778 292
The cruise of Captain Jones in the “Ranger” 293
The Naval Office at Paris, 1779-1780 294
John Paul Jones and Peter Landais 294
Plan for an expedition against England 295
The cruise of Captain Jones in the “Bon Homme Richard” 295
Dispute between Jones and Landais 298
Their departure for America 300
The trials of Franklin 300
Work of the Naval Office, 1781-1783 301
Thomas Barclay, consul and commissioner 302
John Paul Jones, agent for settling accounts 303
Naval stations in the West Indies 305
Duties and work of the commercial agent at Martinique 305
Naval affairs on the Mississippi 307
Oliver Pollock and Galvez 307
Pollock and privateers 308
Pollock and the “Rebecca” 308
The “West Florida” 310
THE STATE NAVIES
CHAPTER XI.—The Navy of Massachusetts.
The state craft 315
Naval administration in the states 316
The problems of naval warfare 317
Military situation in Massachusetts, 1775 318
Action of the Provincial Congress 318
Massachusetts seaports ask for naval aid 319
Act establishing privateering and prize courts, November 1, 1775 320
Subsequent naval activities of the General court, 1775 323
The fitting out of a fleet, 1776 324
Naval legislation, 1776 325
Remodelling of the law of November 1, 1775 327
Orders to naval officers—a sample 328
Establishment of a Board of War, October, 1776 329
Duties of the Board of War 330
A new naval establishment 333
Naval rules and regulations 334
Naval increases, 1777-1779 335
Launching of the “Protector” 336
Naval administration, 1779-1783 337
Naval increases, 1780-1783 338
Massachusetts privateers 339
The cruises of the state fleet 341
Coöperation of state vessels and privateers 344
The engagements of the state vessels—a sample 345
The Penobscot expedition 347
Losses of the state fleet 352
The end of the navy 353
CHAPTER XII.—The Navy of Connecticut.
The Revolutionary government of Connecticut 354
Fitting out of the “Minerva” and the “Spy” 355
Failure and discharge of the “Minerva” 357
The “Defence” and the “Oliver Cromwell” 358
The building of three row-galleys 360
Naval duties of the Governor and the Council of Safety 360
Naval agents 361
New London and Nathaniel Shaw, jr. 362
Bushnell’s submarine boat 363
Privateers and prize courts 364
Naval pensions 366
Naval rules and regulations 366
A new naval establishment, 1779 366
Cruises of the navy 367
Losses of the navy 369
Warfare of whale-boats on Long Island Sound 370
CHAPTER XIII.—The Navy of Pennsylvania.
Objects of naval enterprise in Pennsylvania 373
The fleet of galleys 373
Rules and regulations 375
The “Montgomery” 375
Strength of the navy, August, 1776 376
Naval uniforms and flag 377
Organs of naval administration 377
Commodores of the navy 378
Naval pay and the sharing of prizes 380
The Pennsylvania Navy Board 381
Work of the Navy Board 382
The navy in 1777 383
Services rendered by the fleet 383
The campaign on the Delaware, 1777-1778 384
Trials for desertion 386
The Navy Board, 1777-1778 387
The fleet, April-July, 1778 388
Sale of the fleet and dismissal of the Navy Board 388
The “General Greene,” 1779 390
Naval legislation 391
Privateers 392
Commissioners for the defence of the Delaware 393
The “Hyder Ally” and “Washington” 394
The end of the navy 395
CHAPTER XIV.—The Navy of Virginia.
Lord Dunmore’s movements in Virginia, 1775 396
Authorization of a navy, December, 1775 396
Work of the Committee of Safety 397
The “Potomac River fleet” 398
The Virginia Navy Board 398
Duties of the Navy Board 399
The location of shipyards 400
Naval manufactories and magazines 401
James Maxwell, naval agent 401
Naval officers 401
Naval increases, 1776 402
Courts of Admiralty 403
Privateers 405
The vessels of the Virginia navy 405
Condition and services of the navy, 1775-1779 407
Losses of the navy, 1775-1779 408
The Board of War and the Naval Commissioner 408
The Commissioner of the Navy 409
Military situation in the South in 1780 410
Naval legislation, 1780 411
The raid of Arnold and Phillips, 1781 413
The navy at Yorktown 415
Dismissal of the officers, seamen, and Commissioner 415
Virginia’s defence of Chesapeake Bay, 1782-1783 415
The end of the navy 416
CHAPTER XV.—The Navy of South Carolina.
First naval enterprises of South Carolina 418
Events of September, 1775 419
The “Defence” 420
Work of the Provincial Congress, November, 1775 420
Work of the Committee of Safety, December, 1775 421
The mission of Cochran 421
Naval legislation, February-March, 1776 422
The Constitution of 1776 423
Naval legislation, April, 1776 423
South Carolina Navy Board 424
Work and organization of the Navy Board 424
Naval legislation, 1777-1778 427
Naval increases, 1776-1779 428
Privateers 429
Services rendered by the South Carolina navy, 1776-1779 429
The “Randolph” and the State fleet 430
The campaign against Charleston, 1779-1780 431
The navy in 1781 and 1783 434
Commodore Gillon and the “South Carolina” 435
Gillon in Europe 436
The “South Carolina” in European waters 436
The expedition against the Bahamas 438
The “South Carolina” at Philadelphia 439
Capture of the “South Carolina” 439
Settlement of the Luxembourg claims 439
CHAPTER XVI.—The Minor Navies of the Southern States.
Organs of naval administration in Maryland 441
Work of the Maryland Provincial Convention, 1776 441
Work of the Maryland Committee of Safety, 1776 441
Maryland vessels 442
Recruiting of the navy 443
Naval officers 443
Court of Admiralty 444
Maryland privateers 444
Sale of naval vessels, 1779 444
Naval conditions, 1779-1783 445
Acts for the defence of the Chesapeake 445
Transporting of the Continental army 446
British depredations, 1782-1783 446
Commissioners for the defence of the Bay 447
Services rendered by the Maryland navy 448
The Battle of the Barges 449
End of the Maryland navy 451
The navy of North Carolina, December, 1775-May, 1776 451
The “Washington,” “Pennsylvania Farmer,” and “King Tammany” 452
The defence of Ocracoke Inlet 454
Services of the “Caswell” 456
North Carolina admiralty courts and privateers 459
Georgia’s first naval enterprise 459
Naval preparations 460
Georgia’s galleys 460
Georgia’s prize court 462
CHAPTER XVII.—The Minor Navies of the Northern States.
British depredations in Rhode Island, 1775 463
Naval operations 463
The “Katy” and “Washington” 464
The “Washington” and “Spitfire” galleys 465
Organs of naval administration 466
Prize court and privateers 467
An attempted naval increase, 1777 468
Coöperation of Rhode Island with Congress, 1778-1779 468
The “Pigot” and the “Argo” 469
The “Rover” 470
Naval preparations in New York 471
New York’s naval establishment 472
Washington and the New York vessels 473
Services of the New York fleet 474
Additional facts about naval affairs in New York 475
New Hampshire and the Penobscot expedition 476
New Hampshire privateers and prize court 476
Naval suggestions of New Jersey 477
APPENDICES
A bibliography 481
A list of commissioned officers in the Continental Navy 506
A list of commissioned officers in the Continental Marine Corps 512
A list of armed vessels 516
PART I
THE CONTINENTAL NAVY
CHAPTER I
THE NAVAL COMMITTEE
The history of the Continental navy covers a period of ten years,
extending from 1775 to 1785. During this time the Continental
Congress made many experiments in naval legislation and devised
several organs of naval administration. The first of these organs,
with whose origin and work this chapter is concerned, was the Naval
Committee. It lasted for only a few months. Its lineal successors,
each of which will be duly considered, were the Marine Committee, the
Board of Admiralty, and the Agent of Marine. These four executive
organs, for the most part, administered the Continental navy.
Certain odds and ends of the naval business, however, fell to the
commander-in-chief of the army and his officers, and to the American
representatives in foreign countries. The second chapter will treat
of the fleets of the army, and the closing chapters of the narrative
of the Continental navy will consider the naval services of our
representatives in foreign lands.
In maritime countries the military service is generally ambidextrous.
Whether the army or navy is first brought into play at the opening
of a war depends upon various circumstances. The presence of a
British army at Boston, already on colonial soil, when the American
Resolution broke out early in 1775, naturally led to the immediate
organization of an army by the colonists. The need of a navy was at
this time not quite so insistent. Moreover, the building, or even the
purchase, of an armed fleet required more time than did the raising
of an army, which was rendered comparatively easy by the previous
training of the colonists in the local militia. Nevertheless, since
both countries engaged in the war were maritime, the creating of a
navy could not long be delayed.
The reader recollects that by the middle of 1775 the battles
of Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill had been fought, a
Continental army had been organized, and Washington had been made
commander-in-chief. Outside of Congress the agitation in behalf
of a Continental navy had begun. That the first suggestions and
advances for a navy should come from New England, where the concrete
problems of the defence of her ports and coasts were being faced,
was to be expected. One of the first men to make such suggestions
was Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts. On July 11, 1775, he wrote to
John Adams in Philadelphia that the best method of securing the
coastwise navigation of the colonies was by row-galleys. He then
continued: “As the whole Continent is so firmly united, why not a
Number of Vessels of War be fitted out and judiciously stationed, so
as to intercept and prevent any supplies going to our Enemies; and
consequently, unless they can make an Impression inland, they must
leave the Country or starve.”[1] The first formal movement in behalf
of a Continental navy came from Rhode Island, which state was during
the summer of 1775 suffering serious annoyances from the British
ships. On August 26 her legislature instructed the Rhode Island
delegates to the Continental Congress to use their influence at the
ensuing session of Congress to obtain a fleet for the protection
of the colonies.[2] On September 2, 1775, Washington, in order to
prevent reinforcements from reaching the enemy at Boston, instructed
Nicholson Broughton to proceed in the schooner “Hannah” on a cruise
against the British transports.[3]
That the question of providing a Continental navy would come up
during the fall session of Congress was certain. The arguments in
its behalf, which were made almost unanimously later in the session,
must have been on the lips of several of the members when they
assembled in Philadelphia in September: an army had been organized,
why not a navy? The situation of the combatants, separated by the
great Atlantic highway; and their character, one a great naval and
commercial power, and the other with maritime interests by no means
inconsiderable, would necessarily make the impending struggle in
no small part a naval one. America had seacoasts and seaports to
be defended, a coastwise navigation to be secured, and above all
commercial and diplomatic communications with foreign powers to be
kept open. These communications were a jugular vein, whose severing
would mean death to the United Colonies. The urgent and specific
calls for armed vessels, which were being made, must be met at
once. Had not America conveniently at hand materials for ships, and
abundant men who had the “habit of the sea”?
In the early months of the session there certainly would arise
opposition to the new military project. The inertia and conservatism
of some of the members would set them against so great an innovation.
To others the fitting out of a fleet, at a time when the length,
seriousness, and meaning of the war with the motherland were but half
unveiled, would seem an unwise and hasty action.
The question of procuring a fleet of armed vessels was first brought
to the attention of Congress on October 3, 1775, when the Rhode
Island members presented their instructions, an account of which will
be given in a succeeding chapter.[4] It is sufficient for present
purposes to say that until December the Rhode Island instructions had
little other result beyond crystallizing and clarifying opinion on
naval affairs by means of the debates which they caused in Congress.
On October 5 sundry letters from London were laid before the Congress
and read. They conveyed the intelligence of “the sailing of two
north country built brigs, of no force, from England, on the 11th
of August last, loaded with arms, powder, and other stores, for
Quebec, without convoy.” Congress at once saw the importance of
capturing these two vessels, in order both to deprive the British
of these stores and to obtain them for the Continental army around
Boston, which sorely needed all the munitions of war it could get. A
motion was therefore made that a committee of three be appointed to
prepare a plan for intercepting the two brigs, and that it “proceed
on this business immediately.”[5] John Adams in his autobiography
says that the opposition to this motion was “very loud and vehement,”
and included some of his own colleagues, and also especially Edward
Rutledge of South Carolina. It seems to have been recognized that the
carrying of the motion would be the initial step in the establishment
of a Continental navy. Such an undertaking its opponents declared,
with a greater display of rhetoric than judgment, was the “most
wild, visionary, mad project that ever had been imagined. It was an
infant taking a mad bull by his horns; and what was more profound
and remote, it was said it would ruin the character and corrupt the
morals of all our seamen. It would make them selfish, piratical,
mercenary, bent wholly upon plunder, etc., etc.” The friends of the
motion, in colors equally glowing, set forth “the great advantages of
distressing the enemy, supplying ourselves, and beginning a system
of maritime and naval operations.” On the taking of the vote the
motion passed in the affirmative; and according to John Adams’s
recollection, he, John Langdon of New Hampshire, and Silas Deane of
Connecticut, “three members who had expressed much zeal in favor of
the motion,” composed the committee.[6]
A little later on the same day this committee reported; and thereupon
Congress decided to write a letter to Washington directing him
to obtain from the Council of Massachusetts two of that state’s
cruisers, and to despatch them on the errand of intercepting the
two supply ships. It also directed that letters be written to the
governors of Connecticut and Rhode Island asking for the loan of some
of their armed vessels, which were to be sent on the same mission.
“The committee appointed to prepare a plan for intercepting the two
vessels bound to Canada” made another report on the 6th, which was
ordered to lie on the table “for the perusal of the members.”[7] This
report was acted upon on October 13, when Congress decided to fit
out two armed vessels, one of ten and the other of fourteen guns, to
cruise three months to the eastward for the purpose of intercepting
the enemy’s transports laden with warlike stores and other supplies.
A committee consisting of Silas Deane, John Langdon, and Christopher
Gadsden of South Carolina was appointed to estimate the expense which
would be incurred in fitting out the two vessels.[8]
In four days this new committee reported an estimate, which was
unsatisfactory and was recommitted.[9] When it again reported on
October 30, two more vessels, one to mount not more than twenty and
the other not more than thirty-six guns, were ordered to be prepared
for sea, and “to be employed in such manner, for the protection and
defence of the United Colonies, as the Congress shall direct.” It
should be noted that the two vessels for which provision was now made
were to engage in the defence of the colonies, and not merely in the
interception of transports, an indication of an advance in the naval
policy of Congress. Four additional members were now added to the
committee, Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island, Joseph Hewes of North
Carolina, R. H. Lee of Virginia, and John Adams of Massachusetts.[10]
This reconstituted committee composed of seven members was sometimes
called “the committee for fitting out armed vessels,” occasionally
the “Marine Committee,” but most frequently the “Naval Committee.”
It secured for its use a room in a public house in Philadelphia, and
in order that there should be no conflict between its meetings and
those of Congress, it fixed its hours from six in the evening until
the close of its business. Its sessions were sometimes pleasantly
continued, even until midnight, by conversational diversions, marked
by a rich flow of soul, history, poetry, wine, and Jamaica rum.
John Adams, who always wrote pungently, has left us a lively picture
of the Naval Committee. His description makes it clear that the
deliberations of this committee were not always marked by that
exalted seriousness and impassive dignity, which we too habitually
ascribe to the Revolutionary Fathers. “The pleasantest part of my
labors for the four years I spent in Congress from 1774 to 1778,”
he said, “was in this Naval Committee. Mr. Lee, Mr. Gadsden, were
sensible men, and very cheerful, but Governor Hopkins of Rhode
Island, above seventy years of age, kept us all alive. Upon
business, his experience and judgment were very useful. But when the
business of the evening was over, he kept us in conversation till
eleven, and sometimes twelve o’clock. His custom was to drink nothing
all day, nor till eight o’clock in the evening, and then his beverage
was Jamaica spirit and water. It gave him wit, humor, anecdotes,
science, and learning. He had read Greek, Roman, and British history,
and was familiar with English poetry, particularly Pope, Thomson, and
Milton, and the flow of his soul made all of his reading our own, and
seemed to bring to recollection in all of us, all we had ever read. I
could neither eat nor drink in these days. The other gentlemen were
very temperate. Hopkins never drank to excess, but all he drank was
immediately not only converted into wit, sense, knowledge, and good
humor, but inspired us with similar qualities.”[11]
The active life of the Naval Committee lasted from October, 1775,
until January, 1776, during which time it laid the foundations of the
navy. Its chairman in January, 1776, was Stephen Hopkins; whether
he was the first to fill this position is not known. His knowledge
of the business of shipping made him particularly useful to the
Committee.[12] The accounts of the Naval Committee were kept by
Joseph Hewes, who was settling them with the Board of Treasury in
September, 1776.[13] Early in December, 1775, John Adams returned
home, and by January only four members of the Committee were left to
transact its business.
In October Congress ordered the fitting out of four vessels, and
appointed the Naval Committee, but did nothing more. By the first
of November the sentiment of Congress was setting strongly towards
organizing a navy. In its debates on the State of Trade during the
latter half of October the necessity of having a navy in order both
to defend the colonial commerce and to carry on the war was generally
recognized.[14] The members from the South were as a rule now lining
up with those of the North in behalf of a naval armament. Events
had happened and were daily happening in New England which were
convincing the doubtful members of Congress. As a military necessity
for conducting the siege of Boston, and with no intention whatever to
create a navy, as such, Washington had obtained seven small cruisers,
and either had sent or was sending them to sea in pursuit of the
enemy’s transports. The logic of events had forced him, on his own
responsibility, to create a little fleet of his own.[15]
With the passage of each day, the gap between the mother-country and
her revolting subjects widened, and the feeling became stronger and
more general that an irrepressible war, which must be fought to a
just conclusion, had begun. What in October seemed chimerical, might
in November appear practicable.
Beginning with November the naval legislation of Congress moved
rapidly. The duty of preparing much of it naturally fell to the Naval
Committee. Its work in large part may be found in the Journals of the
Continental Congress for November and December, 1775, and January,
1776. A brief summary of the most important Congressional resolutions
for this period will be here presented.
On November 2, 1775, Congress voted $100,000 for the work of the
Naval Committee, and empowered it “to agree with such officers
and seamen as are proper to man and command” the four vessels
already ordered to be prepared for sea. Congress also fixed the
“encouragement” of the officers and seamen at “one-half of all
ships of war made prize of by them, and one-third of all transport
vessels.”[16]
On November 10 the first legislation relating to the Marine Corps
of the United States was passed. Two battalions, which were to be
called “the first and second battalions of American Marines,” were to
be raised, consisting of one colonel, two lieutenant-colonels, two
majors, and “other officers as usual in other regiments.” There is
some doubt whether Congress fully understood the duties of marines,
for it provided that “no persons be appointed to office, or inlisted
into said Battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted
with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when
required.”[17] Such a requirement seems to overlook the fact that the
duties of marines are military in character, rather than naval.
The Naval Committee made what probably was its most important report
on November 23, when it laid before Congress “a draught of rules for
the government of the American navy, and articles to be signed by the
officers and men employed in that service.” On the 25th and 28th of
November, these were debated by paragraphs and after slight amendment
were adopted.[18] The rules, eight or ten pages in length, are
brevity itself as compared with the present rules and regulations of
the United States navy, which make a book of some six hundred pages.
More than one-half of the navy’s first rules are concerned with
the feeding, care, rights, duties, and punishments of the ordinary
sailor; while the present rules of the American navy in large part
apply to officers.
A few of the provisions of these old rules are worthy of notice. The
commanders of ships of the thirteen united colonies were “to take
care that divine service be performed twice a day on board, and a
sermon preached on Sundays, unless bad weather or other extraordinary
accidents prevent.” Sailors were to be punished for swearing by
the wearing of a wooden collar, “or some other shameful badge of
distinction.” Sailors were to be put in irons for drunkenness;
while officers guilty of the same offense forfeited two days’ pay.
The extreme punishment which an officer might inflict on a seaman
was “twelve lashes upon his bare back, with a cat of nine tails.”
In case a sailor deserved greater punishment, he must be tried by
a court-martial, which should consist of “at least three captains
and three first lieutenants, with three captains and three first
lieutenants of marines, if there shall be so many of the marines
then present, and the eldest captain shall preside.” A penal code
was established. A court-martial might inflict death for desertion,
mutiny, or murder.
Rations for the sailors were fixed by these old rules for each day of
the week. Saturday’s bill of fare, which consisted of “1 lb. bread,
1 lb. pork, half pint peas, and four ounces cheese,” may be taken as
a sample one. Each seaman was given a half-pint of rum a day, with a
“discretionary allowance on extra duty, and in time of engagement.”
The following provision, for keeping the eatables sweet and
palatable, is noted: “The captain is frequently to order the proper
officers to inspect the condition of the provisions, and if the bread
proves damp, to have it aired upon the quarter deck or poop, and also
examine the flesh cask, and if any of the pickle be leaked out, to
have new made and put in, and the cask made tight and secure.”
The following naval offices were established; the first two only
were commissioned: captain, lieutenant, master, master’s mate,
boatswain, boatswain’s first mate, boatswain’s second mate, gunner,
gunner’s mate, surgeon, surgeon’s mate, carpenter, carpenter’s mate,
cooper, captain’s clerk, steward, and chaplain. Five marine offices
were established; the highest was that of captain. A pay-table was
provided, according to which the monthly wage ranged form $32 for
captains, to $6.67 for able seamen and marines. According to the form
of a contract of enlistment which accompanied the rules, a bounty of
$400 was to be deducted from the proceeds of prizes and to be paid to
the commander, in all cases where he lost a limb in the engagement,
or was incapacitated from earning a livelihood; if the commander was
killed, an equal sum was to be paid to his widow. Minor officers
under the same circumstances received proportionately smaller sums.
The man who first discovered a vessel that was afterwards captured
was rewarded with a double share of prize money; he who first boarded
a prize was entitled to a treble share. Ten shares of every prize
were set aside “to be given to such inferior officers, seamen and
marines, as shall be adjudged best to deserve them by the superior
officers.”
These rules, which were in force throughout the Revolution, and
which were readopted for the government of the new navy under the
Constitution,[19] were drawn up by John Adams, and “examined,
discussed, and corrected” by the Naval Committee. They are an
abridgment and adaptation of parts of the British naval statutes
and regulations in force in 1775. That part of Adams’s rules which
constitutes the penal code of the navy, he obtained from the Naval
Discipline Act passed by the British Parliament in 1749.[20] In
adapting the British code, however, he made it less stringent. The
British also found it advisable in 1779 to lessen the severity of
their code. The rest of Adams’s rules are, with verbal changes and
omissions, chiefly taken from the King’s Regulations and Admiralty
Instructions of 1772. An extract from the King’s regulations
followed by the corresponding one from Adams’s rules will illustrate
the closeness of the parallelism: “No Commander shall inflict any
punishment upon a Seaman, beyond Twelve Lashes upon his bare Back
with a Cat of Nine Tails, according to the ancient Practice of the
Sea.”[21] “No commander shall inflict any punishment upon a seaman
beyond twelve lashes upon his bare back, with a cat of nine tails.”
An additional example of the influence of the British upon the
American navy is found in the fact that the naval offices as given
above were already established in the navy of the Stuarts, indeed,
many of them in the navy of Elizabeth. The Americans were still
British at the time of the Revolution, and they intuitively went
home, so to speak, for the naval models with which they were familiar.
On November 25, 1775, Congress enacted some very important naval
legislation, which in John Adams’s opinion was “the true origin and
foundation of the American navy,” and in producing which he “had
at least as great a share ... as any man living.”[22] The occasion
of this legislation was certain recommendations of Washington. On
October 5 he requested the “determination of Congress, as to the
property and disposal of such vessels and cargoes, as are designed
for the supply of the enemy, and may fall into our hands.” On
November 8 he pointed out the necessity of establishing proper
admiralty courts. On November 11 he recommended to Congress the
establishment of an admiralty court for the trial of prize cases
arising from Continental captures.[23] A report of a committee
of seven members, which had been appointed on the 17th to take
Washington’s request of November 8 into consideration, was, on
the 23rd, laid on the table “for the perusal of the members,” and
was debated and agreed to by paragraphs on the 24th and 25th.[24]
Congress now took the decisive step of authorizing the capture of
all British vessels employed against the United Colonies, either as
armed vessels of war, transports, or supply ships. Provision for
privateering was made in part. It was recommended to the legislatures
of the several colonies to establish courts for the trial of prize
cases. In all cases appeals to Congress were to be allowed, when
made in accordance with certain prescribed rules. Prosecutions in
prize cases must commence in the court of that colony in which the
capture was made, but if the capture took place on the open sea the
captor had the privilege of selecting the most convenient court.
Congress fixed the shares of the proceeds of prizes. In the case of
privateers the whole of the proceeds of captures went to the captors.
In the case of vessels fitted out by a colony, or by Congress,
two-thirds were to go in the first instance to the colony, and in
the second, to Congress; and one-third was to go to the captors:
provided that, if the prize should be a vessel of war, the captor’s
share should be increased to one-half, and the government’s share
correspondingly decreased.
On December 2, 1775, Congress authorized the Naval Committee to
employ two additional vessels, and also to “prepare a proper
commission for the captains or commanders of the ships of war in the
service of the United Colonies.”[25] On the report of the committee
on recaptures, Congress on December 5 fixed the compensation of
recaptors, which varied from one-eighth to the whole of the value of
the vessel and cargo, depending on the time which elapsed between
the capture and recapture.[26] On December 9 the following new naval
offices were established: midshipman, armorer, sailmaker, yeoman,
quarter-master, quarter-gunner, cook, and coxswain.[27] On December
13 the wages of able-bodied seamen were raised to $8 a month; and on
the 22nd the salary of the commander-in-chief of the navy was fixed
at $125 a month.[28]
In accordance with the direction of Congress, the Naval Committee,
on January 6, 1776, reported on the division of the captor’s share
of prizes, among officers, seamen, and marines; whereupon, Congress
divided the captor’s share into twenty parts, and allotted them
equitably between the officers and men. The commander-in-chief
received one-twentieth, and the captains of the fleet making the
capture, two-twentieths. After the officers had been provided for,
the remaining eight and one-half parts were allotted to the seamen,
“share and share alike.”[29]
Meanwhile, the Naval Committee had been busy purchasing, fitting for
sea, and officering a fleet. About the first of November John Adams
was writing from Philadelphia to James Warren in Massachusetts,
inquiring whether naval vessels might be purchased or built in
Massachusetts, and whether suitable officers could be procured
there; and also at the same time to Samuel Chase in Baltimore, in
regard to the purchase of certain vessels in that city.[30] On
November 17 the Committee ordered Silas Deane to go to New York and
to purchase a 20-gun ship and a 10-gun Bermudan-built sloop.[31]
Under the authorizations of Congress of October 13 and October 30,
the Naval Committee purchased four vessels, the “Alfred,” “Columbus,”
“Cabot,” and “Andrew Doria;” named, respectively, for the founder
of the English navy, the discoverer of America, the first English
explorer of America, and the great Genoese Admiral.[32] The first
vessel to be bought was the “Alfred,” a ship of two hundred tons
burden. The “Alfred” was originally the “Black Prince,” and belonged
to John Nixon, the well-known Philadelphia merchant of Revolutionary
times.[33]
On November 5 the Naval Committee appointed Esek Hopkins, of Rhode
Island, commander-in-chief of the fleet.[34] The Committee may have
created this office as analogous to Washington’s position in the
army. It is more probable that the office was borrowed from the
British navy, in which the commander-in-chief was the chief admiral
of a port or station, who held command over all other admirals within
his jurisdiction.[35] The first and only commander-in-chief of the
American navy was at the time of his appointment fifty-seven years
of age. He was a member of an influential Rhode Island family, and a
brother of Stephen Hopkins, of the Naval Committee. About 1745 Esek
Hopkins was a sea captain and merchant adventurer. In the French and
Indian War he had commanded a privateer.[36] At the breaking out of
the Revolution he received the appointment of captain and then of
brigadier-general in the Rhode Island forces. Deliberate in action
and irascible in temper, Hopkins was at the same time industrious,
steadfast, and veracious. The following description was written by
Henry Knox to his wife, probably in April, 1776: “I have been on
board Admiral Hopkins’ ship, and in company with his gallant son, who
was wounded in the engagement with the ‘Glasgow.’ The admiral is an
antiquated figure. He brought to my mind Van Tromp, the famous Dutch
admiral. Though antiquated in figure, he is shrewd and sensible. I,
whom you think not a little enthusiastic, should have taken him for
an angel, only he swore now and then.”[37] The choice of Hopkins as
head of the navy was, at the time, as promising as could have been
made.
On December 7, 1775, a commission was given to John Paul Jones,
an energetic and capable young man, twenty-eight years old, whose
brilliant career was still unforeseen.[38] On December 22 the Naval
Committee laid before Congress a “list of the officers by them
appointed.”[39] It included, besides Hopkins and Jones, the names of
four captains, four first-lieutenants, five second-lieutenants, and
three third-lieutenants. The little roll of captains was headed by
Dudley Saltonstall, who owed his appointment to his brother-in-law,
Silas Deane, a member of the Committee; and was ended by John
Burroughs Hopkins, a son of the commander-in-chief. Immediately above
J. B. Hopkins in rank was Nicholas Biddle, a young Philadelphian,
twenty-five years old, and very promising material for a naval
officer. He had entered the British navy in 1770, and had served as
midshipman on board the same vessel with Lord Nelson. In the summer
of 1775 he was appointed commander of the “Franklin” galley of the
Pennsylvania navy. The fourth captain was Abraham Whipple, the
commodore of the Rhode Island navy.
In these first appointments of the Committee it takes no eagle eye
to discern the workings of nepotism and sectional influences. Of
the five largest naval plums, New England plucked four. This may
have been, however, right enough, as the South was credited with the
commander-in-chief of the army, and New England greatly exceeded the
Middle and Southern states in the number of men who were experienced
in maritime affairs.
In December, 1775, the Naval Committee was preparing a fleet for sea,
which was to make the first naval essay of the new government. The
Pennsylvania Committee of Safety was contributing arms, ammunition,
and sailors. Commodore Hopkins enlisted for the service of his fleet
more than one hundred seamen in Rhode Island, whom Whipple brought
to Philadelphia in the “Katy.” On December 3, 1775, John Paul Jones
hoisted the Continental flag on board the “Alfred,” Hopkins’s
flagship, the first Continental vessel to fly the colors of the new
nation.[40] By the end of January, 1776, the Committee had added
four other small vessels to the navy, the sloops “Providence,” and
“Hornet,” and the schooners, “Wasp,” and “Fly.”[41] The “Providence”
had been the “Katy” of the Rhode Island navy. The “Hornet” and the
“Wasp” were obtained in Baltimore.
On January 5, 1776, the Naval Committee issued sailing orders to the
commander-in-chief. He was ordered, “if Winds and Weather possibly
admit of it, to proceed directly for Chesapeake Bay in Virginia.”
Here he was to strike the enemy’s fleet under Lord Dunmore,
unless it was found to be greatly superior to his own. If he was
so fortunate as to execute this business successfully, he was to
continue southward and master the British forces off the coast of the
Carolinas, and from thence he was to sail northward directly to Rhode
Island and “attack, take, and destroy all the enemy’s naval force
that you may find there.”[42] This program seems rather ambitious,
when one considers the motley assemblage of officers, seamen, and
cruisers, that composed this fleet of made-over merchantmen.
The ice in the Delaware greatly delayed the expedition. Early in
February, 1776, the fleet was assembling at Cape Henlopen. It then
consisted of the flagship “Alfred,” 24, Captain Dudley Saltonstall;
the ship “Columbus,” 20, Captain Abraham Whipple; the brigs “Andrew
Doria,” 14, Captain Nicholas Biddle, and “Cabot,” 14, Captain J.
B. Hopkins; the sloop “Providence,” 12; and the schooner “Fly,” 8.
On February 15 the sloop “Hornet,” 10, and the schooner “Wasp,” 8,
joined the fleet from Baltimore.[43] On the 17th the fleet sailed
outside the Capes into the broad Atlantic. A new nation in whose
veins flowed the blood of a long line of seafaring and sea-fighting
ancestors was about to put to the initial test its skill in naval
warfare, and under conditions far from auspicious. If the doughty
Admiral should get all his queer craft once more into a safe harbor
he would be doing well.
Hopkins had apparently concluded that his Armada might prove vincible
on the stormy coasts of Virginia. Indeed, the enemy must have heard
of his intended coming, and awaited it. Not only discretion, but
good military judgment advised him to abandon for the present the
visitation to the Chesapeake.[44] Before sailing on February 17
he had determined to make a descent on Nassau, New Providence, and
accordingly he gave orders to his captains and commanders to keep in
company, if possible, but if not, to make for the island of Abaco,
one of the Bahamas, where the fleet would next rendezvous.[45]
On the 3rd and 4th of March Nassau was taken after a slight
resistance and without bloodshed, by a landing party consisting of
two hundred marines under one of their officers, Captain Samuel
Nichols, and fifty sailors under Lieutenant Weaver of the “Cabot.”
Eighty-eight cannon, fifteen mortars, a large quantity of shot
and shell besides other munitions of war were captured. Since the
governor of the island succeeded the night before the landing was
effected in removing the gunpowder to a safe hiding place, the
expedition failed of its chief object.[46]
On March 17, having loaded his vessels and a borrowed sloop with
the warlike stores, Hopkins set sail for Rhode Island, taking with
him as prisoners of war several important officials, including the
Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of New Providence. On April 4 the
squadron, having reached the eastward end of Long Island, captured
the British schooner “Hawk,” 6, and the bomb brig “Bolton,” 8. At 1
o’clock on the morning of the 6th the “Alfred,” “Cabot,” “Columbus,”
“Andrew Doria,” and “Providence” engaged His Majesty’s ship
“Glasgow,” 20, Captain Tyringham Howe. After a severe fight of about
three hours, the “Glasgow,” was permitted to escape, leaving her
tender with the Americans.[47] The loss of the enemy was four; that
of the Americans, twenty-four, of which number twenty-three were on
board the “Alfred” and “Cabot,” the two vessels which bore the brunt
of the encounter.[48] Each of these vessels had a lieutenant killed.
The American commanders in this engagement exhibited little skill in
tactics. A fleet permitted a single vessel of the enemy to escape.
Something can be said for them by way of extenuating circumstances.
It should also be said that they showed no lack of spirit. As was
natural, Commodore Hopkins was made the target for much adverse
criticism. Nations, it is said, are seldom just under disgrace,
imaginary or real.
The expedition to New Providence was the sole naval enterprise made
by the Continental vessels, while they were under the direction
of the Naval Committee. Early in 1776 this Committee, reduced in
membership, yielded its control of marine affairs to a new committee
with a fuller complement of members. It scarcely needs to be said
that the Naval Committee’s claim to distinction rests not upon its
military achievements, but upon its work of a civil character,
whereby it laid the foundations of the Revolutionary navy. It
acquired the first American fleet, selected its officers, and fitted
it for sea. It drafted the first civil and penal code of the navy,
and prepared not a little fundamental naval legislation.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Manuscript Letters of John Adams, lodged with the Massachusetts
Historical Society by Mr. Charles Francis Adams, who kindly permitted
the writer to see them.
[2] See Chapter III, The Organization of the Marine Committee.
[3] See Chapter II, The Fleets of Washington and Arnold. After a
thorough investigation and study of the sources of the early history
of the Continental navy, I am compelled to reject many of the
statements and conclusions found in Chapter II, Volume I, of Augustus
C. Buell’s book, Paul Jones, Founder of the American Navy.
[4] See Chapter III, The Organization of the Marine Committee.
[5] Journals of Continental Congress, October 5, 1775. Waite, H.
E., Origin of American Navy, 1-5, containing letters of John Adams,
Elbridge Gerry, and John Langdon, written in 1813.
[6] Works of John Adams, III, 7, 8. I have accepted the account of
this debate as found in John Adams’s autobiography, although it is
possible that writing many years after its occurrence Adams may
have confused it with the debate of October 7 on the Rhode Island
resolutions.—Works of John Adams, I, 187.
[7] Journals of Continental Congress, October 6, 1775.
[8] Journals of Continental Congress, October 13, 1775. The armament
of the second vessel was not determined until October 30, 1775.
[9] Ibid., October 17, 1775.
[10] Ibid., October 30, 1775. John Adams, in his Notes on Debates
for October 30, 1775, reports George Ross of Pennsylvania as saying:
“We can’t get seamen to man four vessels. We could not get seamen to
man our boats, our galleys.” Adams also tells us that three of the
Virginia members, Wythe, Nelson, and Lee, were “for fitting out four
ships.”—Works of John Adams, II, 484.
[11] Works of John Adams, III, 9, 12.
[12] Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography, III, 259.
[13] Journals of Continental Congress, September 19, 1776.
[14] Works of John Adams, II, 469-83. In one of these debates,
according to Adams, George Wythe of Virginia said: “Why should not
America have a navy? No maritime power near the seacoast can be
safe without it. It is no chimera. The Romans suddenly built one in
their Carthaginian war. Why may not we lay a foundation for it? We
abound with firs, iron ore, tar, pitch, turpentine; we have all the
materials for the construction of a navy.”—Works of John Adams, II,
479.
[15] See Chapter II, The Fleets of Washington and Arnold.
[16] Journals of Continental Congress, November 2, 1775.
[17] Ibid., November 10. Congress first ordered the marines to be
raised from the Continental army, but on the objecting of Washington
to such weakening of his forces, they were directed to be raised
independent of the army.—Journals, November 10, 30, 1775; Ford,
Writings of Washington, III, 225, 274.
[18] Journals of Continental Congress, November 23, 25, 28, 1775.
[19] Thomas Clark, Naval History of United States, II, 108.
[20] Pickering’s Statutes, 22, George II, chapter 33; title of act,
“An act for amending, explaining, and reducing into one Act of
Parliament, the laws relating to the government of his Majesty’s
ships, vessels, and forces by sea.”
[21] King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions of 1772.
[22] Works of John Adams, III, 11. Certain words of John Adams in a
letter dated, Philadelphia, April 28, 1776, have an interest in this
connection: “I have vanity enough to take to myself a share in the
merit of the American navy. It was always a measure that my heart was
much engaged in, and I pursued it for a long time against the wind
and tide, but at last obtained it.”—Force, American Archives, 4th, V,
1111.
[23] Ford, Writings of Washington, III, 165, 203-04, 213-14;
Washington to President of Congress, October 5, November 8, 11, 1775.
See Chapter II, page 67.
[24] Journals of Continental Congress, November 17, 23, 24, and 25.
The Journals for November 25 contain the resolutions.
[25] Journals of Continental Congress, December 2, 1775.
[26] Ibid., December 5, 1775. This legislation refers to American
vessels captured by the British and recaptured by the Americans.
[27] Ibid., December 9, 1775.
[28] Journals of Continental Congress, December 13 and 22, 1775.
[29] Ibid., January 6, 1776.
[30] Manuscript letters of John Adams, Massachusetts Historical
Society; Warren to Adams, November 14, 1775; Chase to Adams, November
16 and 25, 1775.
[31] Collections of New York Historical Society, Deane Papers, I,
91-92.
[32] Works of John Adams, III, 12.
[33] M. I. J. Griffin, Commodore John Barry, 19; Pennsylvania
Archives, 2nd, II, 668. In December, 1774, the “Black Prince”
belonged to Thomas Willing, Robert Morris, Thomas Morris, John
Wharton, and John Nixon.—Pa. Magazine of History and Biography,
October, 1904, 495.
[34] Edward Field’s Esek Hopkins, 78-9.
[35] British Marine Encyclopedia, in Hogg’s Naval Magazine for 1801.
[36] Edward Field, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
II, 422.
[37] Edward Field’s Esek Hopkins, 134, quotes from Drake’s Life of
Knox.
[38] Sands, Life and Correspondence of John Paul Jones, 32.
[39] Journals of Continental Congress, December 22, 1775.
[40] Force, American Archives, 4th, IV, 360; letter to Earl of
Dartmouth, dated Maryland, Dec. 20, 1775.
[41] Journals of Continental Congress, December 2, 1775, January 9
and 16, 1776. The Naval Committee spent $134,333 on the eight vessels
which they fitted out.—Journals of Continental Congress, September
19, 1776.
[42] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 78, III, 239-40,
orders of Commodore Hopkins, signed by four members of the Naval
Committee.
[43] Force, American Archives, 4th, V, 823.
[44] Ford, Writings of Washington, III, 299-300, 319. Washington
wrote on January 4, 1776, to Joseph Reed: “I fear your fleet has
been so long in fitting, and the destination of it so well known,
that the end will be defeated, if the vessels escape.” In July,
1776, Dunmore’s fleet consisted of more than forty vessels, most of
which, however, were probably unarmed, being occupied by refugee
Tories.—Maryland Archives, XII, 24-25.
[45] Edward Field’s Esek Hopkins, 101; a copy of Hopkins’s orders is
given.
[46] Papers of Esek Hopkins, Rhode Island Historical Society, an
invoice of captured articles.
[47] Force, American Archives, 4th, V, 823, Hopkins to President of
Congress, April, 1776, giving an account of the expedition.
[48] W. L. Clowes, Royal Navy, IV, 3, 4; Connecticut Gazette, April
12, 1776.
CHAPTER II
THE FLEETS OF WASHINGTON AND ARNOLD[49]
The first armed vessels that sailed under Continental pay and control
were those that composed the little fleet fitted out by Washington
in the ports of Massachusetts in the fall of 1775. As these vessels
were manned by soldiers and were commanded by army officers, and
were designed to weaken the army of the enemy by capturing his
transports carrying supplies and troops, Washington was able to
derive his authority for procuring and fitting out the fleet from his
commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental army. The first
vessel employed in this service was the schooner “Hannah,” commanded
by Nicholson Broughton, a captain in the army. According to his
instructions, issued September 2, 1775, and signed by Washington,
Broughton was directed to proceed “immediately on a cruise against
such vessels as may be found on the high seas, or elsewhere, bound
inwards and outwards, to or from Boston, in the service of the
Ministerial Army, and to take and seize all such vessels, laden with
soldiers, arms, ammunition, or provisions, for or from said Army, or
which you shall have good reason to suspect are in such service.”
One-third of all captured cargoes were to be given to officers and
crews as an encouragement. The proportions according to which the
captors’ share was to be divided were fixed. The captain was to
receive six times as much as a private. Prizes were to be sent to the
“safest and nearest port to this camp.” Prisoners were to be treated
with kindness and humanity. Broughton was directed to be exceedingly
careful and frugal with his ammunition, and not to waste it in
salutes.[50]
Not until a month after the fitting out of the “Hannah” did
Washington begin to add to his naval force. On October 4 he appointed
Colonel John Glover and Stephen Moylan agents to equip two vessels
at Salem, Marblehead, or Newburyport, and they were directed
to name suitable men for prize agents in the leading ports of
Massachusetts.[51] When Washington received the letter of Congress
of October 5 directing him to obtain two vessels from Massachusetts
and to send them to the St. Lawrence river to intercept two British
transports bound from London for Quebec, he ordered on this service,
since Massachusetts at this time had no armed vessels, the schooners
“Lynch,” Captain Nicholson Broughton, and “Franklin,” Captain
John Selman, which had been or were being fitted out by Glover
and Moylan.[52] In October and November four other small vessels,
the schooners “Lee,” “Harrison,” and “Warren,” and the brigantine
“Washington” were fitted out and sent cruising against the enemy’s
transports. About the first of January, 1776, the schooner “Hancock”
was added. Washington had the entire management of his fleet.
Stephen Moylan, who was attached to his staff, conducted most of the
correspondence with the captains and naval agents while Washington
was at Cambridge.[53] Agents for fitting out the fleet and receiving
its prizes were established in Plymouth, Boston, Lynn, Salem,
Marblehead, Beverly, Newburyport, and Portsmouth, N. H. In January,
1776, Washington appointed John Manly commodore of the fleet. The
other commanders thereby became subject to Manly’s orders.
With the exception of Manly, Washington had a poor opinion of the
abilities of his commanders. On January 28 he wrote to Manly: “I
wish you could inspire the captains of the other armed schooners
under your command with some of your activity and industry.”[54] In
November, 1775, he had written: “Our rascally privateersmen go on at
the old rate, mutinying if they can not do as they please. Those at
Plymouth, Beverly, and Portsmouth have done nothing worth mentioning
in the prize way, and no account as yet received from those farther
eastward,” referring to the “Lynch” and “Franklin,” whose commanders
he feared “would not effect any good purpose.”[55] Early in December
Washington was still more emphatic: “The plague, trouble, and
vexation I have had with the crews of all the armed vessels, are
inexpressible. I do believe there is not on earth a more disorderly
set. Every time they come into port, we hear of nothing but mutinous
complaints. Manly’s success has lately, and but lately, quieted his
people. The crews of the Washington and Harrison have actually
deserted them; so that I have been under the necessity of ordering
the agent to lay the latter up, and get hands for the other on the
best terms he could.”[56]
Notwithstanding the Commander-in-chief’s unfavorable judgment, it
must be said that his fleet, upon the whole, was quite as successful
as were other fleets of equal size and force during the Revolution.
The vessels which composed it were small and lightly armed. Manly’s
first vessel, the “Lee,” with which he rendered effective service,
carried fifty men and four 4-pounders. The brigantine “Washington”
was somewhat larger, mounting ten guns. Altogether the fleet captured
some thirty-five prizes.[57] The first important capture, that of the
brigantine “Nancy,” was an exceedingly timely one, and was made by
Manly in the “Lee” on one of the last days of November, 1775. Among
other stores the “Nancy” had on board 2,000 muskets, 100,000 flints,
30,000 round shot, more than 30 tons of musket shot, 11 mortar beds,
and a brass mortar weighing 10,000 pounds. It would have taken the
Americans eighteen months to have manufactured a like quantity of
ordnance.[58] In June, 1776, the fleet, together with the “Defence”
of the Connecticut navy, captured four British transports, which had
on board besides a quantity of supplies upwards of three hundred and
twenty Scottish troops.[59]
Washington’s fleet cruised chiefly off the Massachusetts coast.
Broughton and Selman, whom Washington dispatched to the river St.
Lawrence to intercept the two British transports, did not enter the
river at all. After making several unauthorized captures, they turned
their attention to the island of St. Johns, now Prince Edward island.
Here they pillaged the defenceless inhabitants, and robbed the houses
of the Governor and Acting-Governor of plate, carpets, curtains,
mirrors, table linen, and wearing apparel. They made prisoners of
the Acting-Governor and two other leading men of the island, whose
families were left in great distress. Washington was highly indignant
at these unwarranted acts of his captains, and at once on their
arrival in Massachusetts he released their three prisoners.[60]
Moved by the need for a proper judicial tribunal to try the prize
cases arising from captures made by his vessels, Washington on
November 11, 1775, wrote to Congress on the subject. He enclosed in
his letter a copy of the Massachusetts law establishing admiralty
courts, and explained that this law did not apply to the captures
made by Continental vessels. “Should not a court,” he asked, “be
established by authority of Congress, to take cognizance of prizes
made by the Continental vessels? Whatever the mode is, which they
are pleased to adopt, there is an absolute necessity of its being
speedily determined on, for I can not spare time from military
affairs to give proper attention to these matters.” As early as
October 5 Washington had requested the “determination of Congress,
as to the property and disposal of such vessels and cargoes, as
are designed for the supply of the enemy, and may fall into our
hands.” On November 8 he called the attention of Congress to the
same subject. On December 4 and December 14 he again urged Congress
to establish a Continental prize court.[61] Finally, on December
20 Congress resolved that the several vessels heretofore carried
into Massachusetts by the armed vessels in the service of the United
Colonies should be “proceeded against by the rules of the law of
nations, and libelled in the courts of admiralty erected in said
colony.”[62] The method of procedure which Congress here established
was followed throughout the Revolution in all prize cases arising
from captures made by Continental vessels. Congress permitted the
states to exercise original jurisdiction in all Continental prize
cases, and reserved to itself appellate jurisdiction, so far as it
had power to do so.
It is recalled that Congress, on November 25, 1775, having under
consideration the report of a committee on Washington’s letter of
November 8, determined the kinds of British property which should
be subject to capture, fixed the shares of prizes, and established
certain forms of procedure in the trial of prize cases.[63] The lack
of correspondence between these resolutions and the Massachusetts
law of November 1, establishing admiralty courts, caused long
and serious delays in bringing the Continental prizes to trial.
Washington, on April 25, 1776, wrote from New York: “I have not yet
heard, that there has been any trial of the prizes carried into
Massachusetts Bay. This procrastination is attended with very bad
consequences. Some of the vessels I had fitted out are now laid up,
the crews being dissatisfied that they cannot get their prize money.
I have tired the Congress on this subject, but the importance of it
makes me again mention, that, if a summary way of proceeding is not
resolved on, it will be impossible to get our vessels manned.”[64]
On the evacuation of Boston by the British in March, 1776, Washington
soon removed his headquarters to New York. He left his fleet in
charge of General Artemas Ward, who reported its movements to him.
In February, 1777, the Marine Committee of Congress ordered the
Continental agent at Boston to pay off and discharge the fleet.[65]
In March the Marine Committee appointed three commissioners to settle
the accounts of Washington’s prize agents.[66] These commissioners
had not completed their task in April, 1778.[67]
In April, 1776, immediately upon Washington’s arrival in New York,
he began to equip a fleet similar to the one at Boston. He requested
from the New York Committee of Safety the loan of their state
vessels, which he wished to use in suppressing illicit trade with
the enemy. Some disagreement arose as to the terms of the loan.
Washington insisted that if he manned the “General Schuyler,” he
would expect to appoint her officers. In the end, the “General
Schuyler” was turned over to Washington, and the captain of the
“General Putnam” was directed to obey his orders.[68] Washington
now obtained from other sources the sloop “General Mifflin.” These
vessels, which cruised during the summer of 1776 chiefly in the
neighborhood of Long Island, and usually with the New York state
sloop “Montgomery,” captured several British vessels.[69] In
the summer of 1776 Washington was constructing some “gondolas,”
row-galleys, and fire-ships, for the defence of the Hudson. The
galley “Lady Washington,” which was manned and completed by the
summer of 1776, was still in service on the Hudson in June, 1777.[70]
In the significance of their results the operations of no other naval
armament of the Americans during the Revolution compare with those
of Arnold’s fleet on Lake Champlain in the fall of 1776. On May
31, 1775, the Continental Congress desired the New York Provincial
Congress “to take effectual care that a sufficient number of batteaus
be immediately provided for the lakes.”[71] Major-General Schuyler
commanded the Continental forces in this region, including the naval
armaments upon the Lakes. These last, in September, consisted of a
sloop, a schooner, two row-galleys, and ten “batteaus.”[72] About
the first of August the New York Provincial Congress sent James Smith
to Schuyler to take command of the sloop “Enterprise.”[73] Smith
either received or gave to himself the title of “Commodore on the
Lakes.” He did not long hold this title; for in March, 1776, the
Continental Congress appointed Major William Douglass of New York,
“Commodore on the Lakes,” a place for which General Schuyler had
recommended Captain Jacobus Wynkoop, of the same state.[74] In April
Wynkoop was enlisting seamen in New York City.[75] In May, since
Douglass did not enter upon his appointment, Schuyler, acting under
the orders of Congress, put the armed vessels under the command of
Wynkoop.[76]
About the first of July, 1776, the American forces were driven out of
Canada. They retreated southward as far as the forts on the Lakes.
The holding of Lakes Champlain and George, which were a strategic
part of the line of communication between Canada and the Hudson, now
became a matter of vital importance. Providing against a possible
failure in Canada, Congress, Washington, and Schuyler had, in May and
early June, been increasing the effectiveness of the naval armament
on the Lakes. On June 17 Congress ordered Schuyler to build “with
all expedition, as many galleys and armed vessels as, in the opinion
of himself and the general officer to be sent into Canada, shall be
sufficient to make us indisputable masters of the lakes Champlain
and George.” A master carpenter, acquainted with the construction of
the galleys used on the Delaware, other carpenters, and models of
galleys, if required, were to be sent on from Philadelphia.[77]
Towards the end of June, Brigadier-General Benedict Arnold,
recognizing the supreme importance of maintaining a naval superiority
on the Lakes, began to exert an influence in naval affairs. Arnold
was not without marine experience; as a resident of New Haven,
engaged in the West India trade, he had sometimes commanded his own
ships. On June 25, 1776, he wrote to Washington: “It now appears to
me of the utmost importance that the Lakes be immediately secured by
a large number (at least twenty or thirty) of gondolas, row-galleys,
and floating batteries.... I think it absolutely necessary that
three hundred carpenters be immediately employed.”[78] Towards the
end of July, General Gates appointed Arnold to command the naval
forces on the Lakes. Wynkoop, who held a similar command by virtue
of an appointment from Congress and Schuyler, refused to yield to
Arnold. He was thereupon arrested by Gates and sent as a prisoner to
Schuyler.[79]
During July and August, 1776, Skenesborough, at the head of Lake
Champlain, was the scene of the greatest naval activity. Requisitions
were made upon Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
Massachusetts for carpenters. Naval stores and munitions of war of
all sorts, sail-cloth, cordage, anchors, cannon, and ammunition were
sent to the Lakes from the seaboard, especially from New York and
Connecticut. Seamen were hurried forward. On August 13 the Governor
and Council of Safety of Connecticut voted £180 to Captain Seth
Warner of Saybrook to enable him to raise a crew of forty seamen for
the naval service on the Lakes. These men were “to receive a bounty
of £6 for inlisting; and for finding themselves blankets, 12s; guns,
6s; and cartouch-box and belt and knapsack, 2s; and one month’s
wages being 48s advanced, according to proclamation.” On August 16
the Governor and Council of Safety authorized two other companies to
be raised.[80] In September Gates understood that two hundred seamen
had been enlisted in New York city.[81]
On July 24, 1776, Arnold wrote from Skenesborough to Gates: “I
arrived here last evening, and found three gondolas on the stocks;
two will be completed in five or six days, the row galley in eight
or ten days. Three other gondolas will be set up immediately, and
may be completed in ten days. A company of twenty-seven carpenters
from Middletown are cutting timber for a row-galley, on the Spanish
construction, to mount six heavy pieces of cannon. One hundred
carpenters from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts will be here this
evening. I shall employ them on another row-galley. In two or three
weeks, I think we shall have a formidable fleet. No canvass or
cordage is yet arrived, though much wanted.”[82] Through strenuous
exertions the American fleet on the Lakes was greatly increased and
strengthened. By October it consisted of one sloop, three schooners,
eight “gondolas,” and four galleys, mounting a total of 94 cannon,
2-pounders to 18-pounders. With a full complement, the fleet would
have carried 856 men. It probably numbered about 700 officers and
men, such as they were.[83] Arnold said that he had a “wretched
motley crew in the fleet; the marines the refuse of every regiment,
and the seamen few of them ever wet with salt water.” Many of his
seamen and marines were almost naked.[84]
During the first days of October the naval superiority on the Lakes
shifted to the British. General Sir Guy Carleton, the British
commander, drawing upon superior naval resources, had outbuilt
Arnold. Early in October Carleton’s fleet consisted of one ship,
two schooners, one “radeau,” one large “gondola,” twenty gunboats,
and four armed tenders. Some of these vessels and the material for
others he had brought from the St. Lawrence up the Richelieu. The
ship “Enterprise,” eighteen 12-pounders, 180 tons burden, whose
construction had been begun at Quebec, he thus transported in pieces.
She was set up at St. Johns, on the Richelieu, where the British
shipyard was situated. This vessel in size and armament greatly
exceeding any one craft of the Americans. A fleet of transports
and ships of war in the St. Lawrence furnished Carleton with seven
hundred experienced officers and seamen.[85]
The two fleets engaged each other on Lake Champlain on October 11,
12, and 13, 1776. Ten of the American vessels were captured or
destroyed. General Waterbury, second in command, and 110 prisoners,
were captured. In killed and wounded Arnold lost about eighty men;
and the British forty. The British were left in command of the Lake;
the Americans retreated to Ticonderoga.[86]
Although most decisively defeated in the battle upon the Lake,
Arnold had delayed the advance of the British some two or three
months, while they were obtaining a naval superiority. This delay had
far-reaching consequences. Carleton now found the season too late to
pursue his advantage, and to make, or attempt to make, a juncture
with Howe to the southward. He therefore soon returned to winter
quarters at Montreal. When Burgoyne, in 1777, repeated the attempt to
penetrate to the Hudson, Howe’s removal of his army to the Chesapeake
in his movement against Philadelphia, deprived Burgoyne’s army of
the support on the Hudson, which it might have had in the fall of
1776. It has been strikingly said, by Captain Mahan, that Arnold’s
and Carleton’s naval campaign on Lake Champlain was a “strife of
pigmies for the prize of a continent.” Although the American flotilla
was wiped out, “never had any force, big or small, lived to better
purpose, or died more gloriously; for it had saved the Lake for that
year.”[87]
FOOTNOTES:
[49] This chapter, which is presented here for chronological reasons,
is not closely related to the main narrative, which will be resumed
at the beginning of Chapter III.
[50] Force, American Archives, 4th, III, 633-34, Instructions to
Broughton.
[51] Force, American Archives, 4th, III, 946.
[52] See Chapter I, The Naval Committee, page 37; Ford, Writings of
Washington, III, 174-5.
[53] Moylan had been for some months a member of Washington’s
official household before he was appointed aide-de-camp in March,
1776.
[54] Ford, Writings of Washington, III, 382-83.
[55] Ibid., 231-32, Washington to Joseph Reed, November 20, 1775.
[56] Ford, Writings of Washington, III, 261-62, Washington to
President of Congress, December 4, 1775.
[57] This calculation is made chiefly from accounts of the vessels
found in Force’s American Archives and Ford’s Writings of Washington.
[58] Ford, Writings of Washington, III, 252 and note; Letters of John
Adams, Massachusetts Historical Society, William Tudor to John Adams,
December 3, 1775.
[59] Boston Gazette, July 6, 1776.
[60] Force, American Archives, 4th, IV, 451-52, Memorial of Philip
Callbeck and Thomas Wright; Ford, Writings of Washington, III, 175
and note, 261-62 and note. H. E. Waite, Origin of American Navy,
26-28. Report on Canadian Archives, 1895, Prince Edward Island,
15-16. The number of vessels captured by Broughton and Selman on
this cruise has been given by Elbridge Gerry as ten and by Selman as
seven. Both figures are probably too high.
[61] Ford, Writings of Washington, III, 165, 203-04, 213-214, 251-58,
274.
[62] Journals of Continental Congress, December 20, 1775.
[63] See Chapter I, The Naval Committee, page 48. It would seem
that Congress, by its resolutions of November 25, intended to give
colonial courts original jurisdiction in Continental prize cases.
Washington did not so understand these resolutions. See his letter of
December 14, 1775, to the President of Congress, and his letter of
December 26, 1775, to R. H. Lee.
[64] Ford, Writings of Washington, III, 404; IV, 44, 45.
[65] Marine Committee Letter Book, Robert Morris, Vice-President
of the Marine Committee, to John Bradford, Continental agent at
Boston, February 7, 1777. The “Lee,” Captain Skimmer, was still in
the Continental service in November, 1777, when the Navy Board was
ordered to discharge Skimmer, and to take the “Lee” into the regular
Continental navy, if she was adapted for it.—Marine Committee Letter
Book, Committee to Navy Board at Boston, November 22, 1777.
[66] Marine Committee Letter Book, Committee to the three
Commissioners, March 21, 1777.
[67] Journals of Continental Congress, April 9, 1778.
[68] Journals of New York Committee of Safety, April 24, May 10, 1776.
[69] The movements of these vessels may be followed in Force’s
American Archives, Ford’s Writings of Washington, and the Journals of
the New York Provincial Congress and Committee of Safety.
[70] Journals of Continental Congress, May 30, 1776; Force, American
Archives, 5th, I, 1263; Journals of New York Provincial Congress,
June 7, 1777.
[71] Journals of Continental Congress, May 31, 1775.
[72] Force, American Archives, 4th, III, 738.
[73] Ibid., 11, 14.
[74] Journals of Continental Congress, March 26, 1776; Journals of
New York Committee of Safety, March 18, 1776.
[75] Journals of New York Committee of Safety, April 24, 1776.
[76] Force, American Archives, 5th, I, 1186, 1277; Journals of New
York Provincial Congress, March 16, 1776; Journals of Continental
Congress, May 2, 1776.
[77] Journals of Continental Congress, May 22, May 25, June 17, 1776;
Ford, Writings of Washington, IV, 101.
[78] Force, American Archives, 4th, VI, 1107-08.
[79] Ibid., 5th, I, 1186-87.
[80] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 500, 503. The rolls of
these three Connecticut companies, containing eighty-five names, will
be found in the Connecticut Historical Society Collections, VIII,
235-37.
[81] Force, American Archives, 5th, II, 186.
[82] Ibid., I, 563.
[83] Force, American Archives, 5th, II, 1039. One galley which was
fitting at Ticonderoga is not included in the above list. The exact
number of men in Arnold’s fleet is uncertain.
[84] Ibid., 481, 834.
[85] Force, American Archives, 5th, II, 1178-79; Clowes, Royal Navy,
III, 353-370, Chapter XXXI, written by Captain A. T. Mahan.
[86] Force, American Archives, 5th, II, 1079-80; Almon’s
Remembrancer, 1777, 356.
[87] Clowes, Royal Navy, III, 363, 368. In the campaign of Burgoyne,
in July, 1777, the British destroyed or captured a small American
flotilla at Skenesborough.—Winsor, Narrative and Critical History,
VI, 297.
CHAPTER III
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MARINE COMMITTEE
In the years immediately preceding the Revolution the four New
England colonies were largely engaged in shipbuilding, fishing,
whaling, and commerce. The forests of Maine and New Hampshire
afforded incomparable oaks and white pines for ships. Indeed, not a
few of these trees were sealed for the use of the Royal Navy, and
their high quality authenticated, by the mark of the “King’s broad
arrow.” New England’s hardy dwellers on the seacoast had long engaged
in fishing on the Newfoundland banks, or in whaling in many seas, and
had bred a race of sailors. The Atlantic withheld few secrets from
the bold Yankee skippers. They were equally at home in the coastwise
navigation, reaching from Nova Scotia to Florida, in deep-sea voyages
to the motherland or the Continent, in skirting the Guinea coast in
quest of its dark-skinned trade, or in slipping down the trade winds
with canvas set for the sunny sugar islands of the West Indies or
the Spanish Main. In no other section of the revolting colonies was
the first formal movement for the building of a Continental navy so
likely to be made as in New England. Here were ships, sailors, and a
knowledge of the sea.
Certainly not a whit behind the other three New England states
in nautical interests was little sea-cleft Rhode Island. In the
establishing of state navies she had moved first, and on June
15, 1775, had put two vessels in commission. On the same day her
Commodore Whipple captured an armed tender of the British frigate
“Rose”—the first authorized capture made by the Americans at sea
during the Revolution.[88] Already her coasts and her trade were
being annoyed by the enemy. It was then in keeping with her maritime
character, with her forwardness in naval enterprise, and with her
needs for defence, that her Assembly should have instructed her two
delegates to the Continental Congress, on August 26, 1775, “to use
their whole influence, at the ensuing Congress, for building at the
Continental expense, a Fleet of sufficient force for the protection
of these Colonies, and for employing them in such manner and places
as will most effectually annoy our enemies, and contribute to the
common defence of these Colonies.” The Assembly was persuaded that
an American fleet “would greatly and essentially conduce to the
preservation of the lives, liberty, and property of the good people
of these Colonies.”[89]
The naval situation in Congress during the fall of 1775 and the
winter of 1775-76 should be clearly understood. The debates and
legislation of Congress concerning naval affairs are attached, as it
were, to two threads. One thread, beginning with the appointment of
a committee, on October 5, 1775, to prepare a plan for intercepting
two British transports, has already been unraveled. The other, which
had its origin in the introduction in Congress of the Rhode Island
instructions, will now be followed.
The delegates of Rhode Island to the Congress in the fall of 1775
were two sterling patriots, Samuel Ward and Stephen Hopkins. Each
had been governor of Rhode Island, and each had grown old in the
public service. Once bitter political rivals, they were now yoked
together in the common cause of their state and country. On October
3, 1775, one of the Rhode Island delegates, presumably Samuel Ward,
laid before Congress the instructions of his state in behalf of a
Continental fleet. On this day the consideration of the instructions
went over until the 6th, and on the 6th until the 7th.[90]
When the Rhode Island instructions came up on October 7, a debate
ensued, a synopsis of which has been left us by John Adams.[91] The
discussion was participated in by Robert Treat Paine, Samuel Adams,
and John Adams of Massachusetts, John Rutledge and Christopher
Gadsden of South Carolina, Samuel Chase of Maryland, Stephen Hopkins
of Rhode Island, Dr. John J. Zubly of Georgia, Eliphalet Dyer and
Silas Deane of Connecticut, and Peyton Randolph of Virginia. When the
debate took place, the consideration of the Rhode Island instructions
had been postponed until the 16th, and the motion before the Congress
was to appoint a committee “to consider the whole subject.”
The establishing of a navy naturally found least favor among the
members coming from the agricultural South, and most support from
those of maritime New England. Chase, of Maryland, declared, “It is
the maddest idea in the world to think of building an American fleet;
its latitude is wonderful; we should mortgage the whole continent.”
He added, however: “We should provide, for gaining intelligence,
two swift sailing vessels.” Zubly, of Georgia, said: “If the plans
of some gentlemen are to take place, an American fleet must be a
part of it, extravagant as it is.” Gadsden, of South Carolina,
temperately favored the procuring of armed vessels, thinking that it
was “absolutely necessary that some plan of defence, by sea, should
be adopted.” He was opposed to the “extensiveness of the Rhode Island
plan,” although he thought that it should be considered. The friends
of the navy acted on the defensive. They probably realized that their
cause might well bide its time. Its opponents, to use John Adams’s
phrase, were “lightly skirmishing.” In the end the motion was lost,
and consideration of the instructions was deferred until the 16th.
On October 16, and again on November 16, the Rhode Island
instructions were postponed.[92] Samuel Ward had hopes for a
favorable action on the latter day. On November 16 he wrote from
Philadelphia to his brother in Rhode Island: “Our instruction for
an American fleet has been long upon the table. When it was first
presented, it was looked upon as perfectly chimerical; but gentlemen
now consider it in a very different light. It is this day to be
taken into consideration, and I have great hopes of carrying it. Dr.
Franklin, Colonel Lee, the two Adamses, and many others, will support
it. If it succeeds, I shall remember your ideas of our building two
of the ships.”[93]
The several postponements of the Rhode Island instructions make
it clear that Congress was slow to reach the conclusion that the
“building of a fleet” was desirable or feasible. It was one thing to
fit out a few small vessels for intercepting British transports, and
quite another to build a fleet of frigates. It is not surprising that
under the circumstances Congress hesitated to embark on the larger
undertaking. The difference in the presentation to Congress of the
two propositions, both of which involved the procuring of a naval
armament, is worthy of note, for it had its influence on legislation.
The appointment of a committee to prepare a plan for intercepting
transports, put the question in a softened, more veiled, and less
direct form. It pointed the wedge of naval legislation by a tactful
presentation, and drove it home with an exigency.
In Chapter I the increase of sentiment in favor of a naval armament
during the latter part of October and during November has been
shown, and the important naval legislation of November has been
presented. It was now only a question of time until Congress would
heed the recommendations of Rhode Island. On December 9, 1775,
the Rhode Island instructions once more came up, and a day for
their consideration was fixed, Monday, December 11.[94] On the
11th, “agreeable to the order of the day, the Congress took into
consideration the instructions given to the delegates of Rhode
Island;” whereupon a committee of twelve was appointed to devise ways
and means for furnishing these colonies with a naval armament.[95]
This committee performed its work with commendable celerity, and
brought in, on December 13, one of the most important reports in
the history of the naval affairs under the Revolution, for by its
acceptance Congress committed itself to the establishment of a
considerable naval force. Congress determined to build thirteen
frigates, five of 32, five of 28, and three of 24 guns, to be
distributed, as regards the place of their construction, among the
states as follows: New Hampshire, one; Massachusetts, two; Rhode
Island, two; Connecticut, one; New York, two; Pennsylvania, four;
and Maryland, one. It was estimated that these ships would cost on
the average $66,666.67 each, and that their whole cost would amount
to $866,666.67. All the materials for fitting them for sea would be
procured in America except canvas and gunpowder.[96]
On December 14 a committee consisting of one member from each colony
was chosen by ballot to take charge of the building and fitting
out of these vessels. The members chosen with their states were as
follows: Josiah Bartlett, New Hampshire; John Hancock, Massachusetts;
Stephen Hopkins, Rhode Island; Silas Deane, Connecticut; Francis
Lewis, New York; Stephen Crane, New Jersey; Robert Morris,
Pennsylvania; George Read, Delaware; Samuel Chase, Maryland; R. H.
Lee, Virginia; Joseph Hewes, North Carolina; Christopher Gadsden,
South Carolina; John Houston, Georgia.[97] This committee was
substantially the same as that which reported the naval increase on
the 13th; the only changes were in the members from Massachusetts and
Maryland, and in the addition of a member from Georgia. The committee
was a very able one, comprising several of the foremost men of the
Revolution. Hancock, Morris, Hopkins, and Hewes were especially
interested in naval and maritime affairs. The absence of the name
of John Adams is probably accounted for by his return home early in
December.
This new committee was soon designated as the Marine Committee, by
which name it was referred to throughout the Revolution. Larger, and,
with its engrossing work of building and fitting out the thirteen
frigates, more active than the Naval Committee, it soon overshadowed
and finally absorbed its colleague. This absorption was facilitated
no doubt by the fact that the four members of the Naval Committee
remaining in January, 1776, also belonged to the new committee. With
the exception of the rendering of its accounts, the duties of the
Naval Committee came to an end with the sailing of Hopkins’s fleet in
February, 1776.[98] The Marine Committee now acquired a firm grasp
of the naval business of the colonies, and from this time until
December, 1779, it was the recognized and responsible head of the
Naval Department, and as such, during the period that saw the rise
and partial decline of the Continental navy, its history is of prime
importance.
The Marine Committee like the Naval Committee had at Philadelphia
an office of its own, and held its sessions in the evening. Its
officers consisted of a chairman or president, a vice-president, and
a secretary.[99] Its clerical force comprised one or more clerks.
On June 6, 1777, Congress resolved that five of its members—which
number thereafter constituted a quorum—should form a “board” for
the transaction of business.[100] Each of the thirteen states had
one member on the Committee. Rarely did more than one-half of
the Committee’s members attend its sessions. Its personnel was
continually changing. This was necessitated in part by a similar
change in the membership of Congress; as the old members retired, the
new ones filled their places. The members of the Marine Committee
received no pay for their naval services as such. Each state of
course paid its member of the Committee for his services as a
delegate to the Continental Congress. The wages of the secretary of
the Committee and of its clerical force varied. On June 16, 1778, the
Committee was permitted to raise the wages of its clerks to $100 a
month.[101] The secretary was paid at the rate of $8,000 a year after
November 2, 1778.[102] During 1778 and 1779 Congress was raising the
salaries of its executive employees because of the depreciation of
the currency.
The most responsible duties of the Committee naturally fell to the
four or five members oldest in its service. From this class it drew
its chairmen. Three out of the five men who are known to have filled
this office were on the first list of the Committee’s members.
During possibly all of 1776, and for a part of 1777, courtly John
Hancock presided over the Marine Committee, while at the same time he
dignified the chair of the President of Congress. In December, 1777,
Henry Laurens of South Carolina had succeeded to both of Hancock’s
positions.[103] In 1778 and 1779 the mantles of the first leaders in
naval administration, whether they exactly fitted or not, were worn
by Richard Henry Lee, “one of the fine fellows from Virginia”; Samuel
Adams of Massachusetts; and William Whipple of New Hampshire. Lee
was chairman in the summer of 1778. Probably before December of that
year, certainly by that time, Adams had succeeded him.[104] Adams
in turn yielded in June, 1779, to Whipple, who continued to fill the
office until the Committee was superseded by a Board of Admiralty in
December, 1779.
There were other members besides the chairmen upon whose shoulders
rested the burden of the naval business. Morris, Hewes, and Hopkins
have been previously mentioned as members who were deeply interested
in naval affairs. Morris was for a time vice-president of the
Committee. During the winter of 1776-77, while Congress was at
Baltimore, he remained in Philadelphia, and, for a time, practically
without assistance from the Committee, administered the naval affairs
of the colonies. William Ellery of Rhode Island, who on October 13,
1776, succeeded Hopkins, showed zeal in the business of the navy.
The work of Francis Lewis of New York deserves mention. No doubt
there were other members whose naval services were considerable.
Unfortunately, time has been careless with many of the records of the
Marine Committee.
In carrying out the resolutions of Congress of December 13, 1775,
authorizing the building of thirteen frigates, the Marine Committee
employed agents to superintend the work. These agents, who were
variously designated, were residents of the colonies in which they
were employed, and their selection was usually determined by local
advice and influence. The New Hampshire frigate, the “Raleigh,”
32, was built at Portsmouth under the direction of John Langdon,
formerly a member of the Naval Committee, but now Continental agent
at Portsmouth. He employed three master-builders, who completed
the frigate within less than sixty days after raising it.[105] The
Massachusetts frigates, the “Hancock,” 32, and the “Boston,” 24,
were built at Salisbury and Newburyport, under the direction of an
agent.[106]
The Rhode Island vessels, the “Warren,” 32, and the “Providence,”
28, were constructed at Providence, under the superintendence of a
committee of twelve influential men of that city, who were appointed
by Stephen Hopkins, the Rhode Island member of the Marine Committee.
Certain complaints were lodged with the Marine Committee against the
committee at Providence. One of these was made by Commodore Hopkins,
who charged that the “Providence” and the “Warren” had cost twice as
much as their contract price, “owing to some of the very committee
that built the ships taking the workmen and the stock agreed for off
to work and fit their privateers, and even threatening the workmen
if they did not work for them.”[107] When in the fall of 1776 the
Marine Committee wrote to the committee, blaming its members for some
of their proceedings, they relinquished their authority over the two
vessels to Stephen Hopkins.[108]
The “Trumbull” was built under the direction of agents at Chatham
on the Connecticut river.[109] Two other frigates were begun in
Connecticut in 1777, the “Confederacy,” 36, on the Thames river
between Norwich and New London, and the “Bourbon,” 28, at Chatham
on the Connecticut. Each of these two frigates was constructed
under a superintendent responsible to Governor Jonathan Trumbull
and the Connecticut Council of Safety.[110] Two Commissioners at
Poughkeepsie, New York, had charge of the work on the “Montgomery,”
28, and “Congress,” 24. The Marine Committee kept fairly well in
its own hands the direction of the building at Philadelphia of the
Pennsylvania frigates, the “Randolph,” 32, the “Washington,” 32, the
“Effingham,” 28, and the “Delaware,” 24. The “Virginia,” 28, was
built at Baltimore, Maryland, with the assistance of the Baltimore
Committee of Observation.[111] When under the resolves of Congress of
November 20, 1776, two frigates were begun at the Gosport navy-yard
in Virginia, the work was placed in charge of two commissioners and a
master-builder. Richard Henry Lee, the Virginia member of the Marine
Committee, made the contract with the master-builder.[112]
The need of some one to receive and dispose of prizes soon led to
the appointment of “agents for prizes” in the leading seaports of
the colonies. On April 23, 1776, Congress, on the recommendation
of the Marine Committee, appointed prize agents as follows: One
at Boston; one at Providence; one at New London, Connecticut;
one at New York; two at Philadelphia; one at Baltimore; one at
Williamsburg, Virginia; and one each at Wilmington, Newbern, and
Edenton, North Carolina.[113] On June 25, 1776, Congress appointed
an agent at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.[114] In November, 1776, the
Marine Committee selected two prize agents for South Carolina and
one for Georgia.[115] This list was not completed until September
1, 1779, when Congress appointed a prize agent for New Jersey.[116]
These agents had charge of all Continental prizes sent into their
respective states. By far the most important agency was that of
John Bradford at Boston. It may be estimated that one-half of all
the prizes captured by the Continental vessels in American waters
were ordered to Boston. The naval port second in importance was
Philadelphia.
The duties of the prize agents were to libel all of the Continental
prizes sent into their jurisdiction, see that the prizes were tried
by the proper admiralty court; and after they had been legally
condemned, to sell them, and make an equitable distribution of the
proceeds, in accordance with the resolutions of Congress governing
the sharing of prizes. The prize agents were directed by the Marine
Committee to render to it a quarterly statement showing the prizes
received, sales effected, and distributions of the proceeds made.[117]
The same men who were prize agents were also as a rule “Continental
agents,” in which latter capacity they served the various
administrative organs of Congress, including the Marine Committee.
They assisted the Committee and commander-in-chief of the fleet in
purchasing, refitting, provisioning, and manning the armed vessels.
The naval services of some of these men, both as prize agents and as
Continental agents, were so considerable as to render their names
worthy of mention. Most conspicuous among the several naval agents
were John Bradford of Boston, John Nixon and John Maxwell Nesbit of
Philadelphia, John Langdon of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Nathaniel
Shaw, jr., of New London, and Daniel Tillinghast of Providence.
The governors and legislatures of the colonies and other local
governmental authorities often aided the Committee in its work. The
work of Governor Trumbull and the Connecticut Council of Safety in
the building of the Continental frigates in that state has already
been noted. In the latter part of 1776 the New York Convention
attempted in behalf of the Marine Committee to secure the two
Continental frigates at Poughkeepsie from the British when they
occupied the lower Hudson. Such illustrations could be multiplied.
In two services so closely connected as the navy and the army, the
officers and agents of one were naturally now and then called upon to
serve the other. They borrowed from and lent to each other cannon,
ammunition, and military stores. The Commissaries of one and the
Navy Boards of the other had mutual dealings. The Commissary-General
of Prisoners of the Army had much to do with the care of the marine
prisoners.
Towards the close of 1776 the unsatisfactory state of the naval
business, together with its increase and its growing complexity,
forced home upon the Committee the necessity of providing
some permanent force to take charge of the details of naval
administration. Accordingly, on November 6, 1776, Congress at the
instance of the Marine Committee resolved “that three persons,
well skilled in maritime affairs, be immediately appointed to
execute the business of the navy, under the direction of the marine
committee.”[118] Later in the same month John Nixon, John Wharton,
and Francis Hopkinson were selected as suitable persons for this
work, all three living within or near Philadelphia.
Nixon with his experience as a shipping merchant was probably best
fitted for his task. Fancy may discern a poetic fitness in his
choice, since he had been the owner of the “Alfred,” the first vessel
of the American navy. Nixon also had the distinction of being the
first man to read publicly the Declaration of Independence. Wharton
belonged to the distinguished Philadelphia family of that name. Of
the three men, Hopkinson probably had the widest culture. At the
outbreak of the Revolution he was practicing law at Bordentown,
New Jersey. He was one of the Signers of the Declaration of
Independence. From 1779 to 1789 he was judge of the Admiralty Court
of Pennsylvania. He is best known, however, not for his substantial
services, but as the author of the humorous ballad, the “Battle of
the Kegs.”
On April 19, 1777, Congress on the motion of John Adams decided to
form a similar board for the New England states, the members of which
were to “reside at or in the neighborhood of Boston, in the state
of Massachusetts Bay, with a power to adjourn to any part of New
England; who shall have the superintendence of all naval and marine
affairs of these United States within the four eastern states, under
the direction of the marine committee.”[119] Adams secured the
filling of this board with some difficulty owing to the indifference
of Congress to its establishment. Finally, nine men were nominated,
and on May 6 three of these were chosen commissioners, James Warren
of Plymouth, Massachusetts; William Vernon of Providence, Rhode
Island; and John Deshon of New London, Connecticut.[120]
Foremost of the three Commissioners was Warren, an eminent patriot,
who had been President of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and
also of the Massachusetts Board of War. He was an intimate friend of
John and Samuel Adams, and, it is said, much resembled the latter
in character. Vernon, who served as President of the Navy Board,
was a most distinguished Newport merchant and one of the most
self-sacrificing of patriots. During the Revolution he advanced large
sums of money to the government, which were only in part repaid.
Before the war his trade extended to all the maritime nations of
Europe and to the West Indies and Africa.[121] Deshon was of Huguenot
descent. He was conspicuous in the Revolutionary party of New London,
and was a captain in his state’s military forces. He rendered much
assistance in fitting out the Connecticut navy.
These two boards were variously designated in the official documents
of the time. The one was most frequently called the Navy Board of the
Middle Department or District, or the Navy Board at Philadelphia,
Bordentown, or Baltimore, according to its location; and the other,
the Navy Board of the Eastern Department or District, or the Navy
Board at Boston. The Navy Board at Philadelphia was at first referred
to as the Continental Navy Board, or the Board of Assistants. These
two names indicate that when the board at Philadelphia was formed,
the establishing of a second board was not in contemplation. The
Navy Board at Philadelphia seems to have taken little or no part in
the naval affairs in New England. It was hardly settled in its work
before the Navy Board at Boston was created. Attention should be
called to the fact that the offices of Navy Board and of Commissioner
of the Navy had long been established in the British navy. The
British offices served in some degree as models to Congress and the
Marine Committee.[122]
Each board had a secretary, treasurer, and paymaster; but one person
sometimes served in two, or even the three, capacities. Each board
had one, and sometimes two clerks. A clerkship was at times joined
with one of the other offices. The boards as a rule selected their
own employees. Any two members of the Navy Board at Boston were
empowered by Congress on October 23, 1777, to form a quorum.[123]
With the exception of the resignation of Deshon in May, 1781, the
Navy Board at Boston did not change in personnel. Its headquarters
remained continually at Boston. On the other hand, the membership
of the Navy Board at Philadelphia made several changes. On May 9,
1778, William Smith of Baltimore was elected in the place of John
Nixon, who had resigned.[124] On August 19, Hopkinson and Smith
having resigned, Captain Nathaniel Falconer and James Searle, both of
Pennsylvania, were appointed.[125] Falconer declined the appointment;
Searle accepted, but resigned on September 26.[126] Meanwhile,
Wharton had resigned, and the three commissionerships were vacant.
On November 4, 1778, the vacancies were filled by the reappointment
of Wharton, and the selection of James Read of Delaware, the clerk
and paymaster of the Board, and William Winder,[127] a captain in the
military forces of Maryland and a judge of the court of appeals of
Somerset county in that state. When in December, 1776, Philadelphia
seemed to be in danger from the enemy, Congress and the Board
retreated to Baltimore, where they spent the winter of 1776-1777. The
fortunes of war compelled the Board in the fall of 1777 to retreat to
Bordentown, New Jersey; and after the American fleet in the Delaware
was destroyed, the Marine Committee early in 1778 ordered it to
Baltimore,[128] where it was situated for a few months. In the summer
of 1778 it returned permanently to Philadelphia.
The salary of a commissioner of the navy was first fixed at $1,500
a year. On October 31, 1778, “in consideration of the extensive
business of their departments,” this salary was raised to $3,000,
and on November 12, 1779, on the depreciation of the currency, to
$12,000. It was reduced on September 25, 1780, to $1,500, and was
now paid quarterly in specie or its equivalent. The salaries of the
employees of the Navy Boards underwent like variations. Beginning
with $500, they advanced in some instances as high as $2,000 a year.
On August 4, 1778, the clerk of the Navy Board at Boston was made
a special allowance of $500, “in consideration of the great and
constant business,” in which he had been engaged.[129]
To recapitulate, the chief agents of the Marine Committee were these:
the Navy-Boards, the prize agents, the Continental agents, and the
agents for building vessels. After the creation of the Navy Boards,
the latter three classes served in part as their sub-agents; but by
no means entirely so, for the Marine Committee gave many orders over
the heads of the Boards.
The Marine Committee and its principal agents employed many minor
agents. One illustration, taken from the work of the Navy Boards as
purveyors of the navy, will suffice to show the subordinate character
of the services which these minor agents rendered. It is recorded
that the Navy Board at Boston had in its employ in New Hampshire “a
contractor of beef for the navy,” who in turn had in his employ a
single drover, that by September, 1779, had purchased more than one
thousand head of cattle for the use of the Navy Board at Boston.[130]
FOOTNOTES:
[88] See Chapter XVII, The Minor Navies of the Northern States.
[89] Force, American Archives, 4th, III, 231; Sparks, American
Biography, 2nd, IX, 314-15.
[90] Journals of Continental Congress, October 3, 1775; Force,
American Archives 4th, III, 1888-91; Works of John Adams, II, 462.
[91] Works of John Adams, II, 463-4.
[92] Journals of Continental Congress, October 16, November 16, 1775.
[93] Gammell, Life of Samuel Ward, in Sparks’s American Biography,
2nd, IX, 316.
[94] Journals of Continental Congress, December 9, 1775.
[95] Ibid., December 11, 1775.
[96] Ibid., December 13, 1775.
[97] Journals of Continental Congress, December 14, 1775.
[98] Journals of Continental Congress. January 25, September 19,
1776. See Ford’s new edition of the Journals.
[99] The Secretary of the Marine Committee was John Brown.
[100] Journals of Continental Congress, June 6, 1777.
[101] Ibid., June 16, 1778.
[102] Ibid., January 27, 1780.
[103] Journals of Continental Congress, December 27, 1777.
[104] Lee, however, signed a letter as chairman in March, 1779.
Relative to Samuel Adams’s work in the Marine Committee, these words
of his biographer possess interest: “Upon his arrival in Congress
[May 21, 1778], he was added to the Marine Committee, of which
important Board he was made chairman, and continued to direct its
duties, for the next two years. In this arduous position, judged
from the great number of reports and the multiplicity of business
submitted to it, Adams might fairly have claimed exemption from all
other employments.”—Wells, Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams,
III, 13. Mr. Wells exaggerates the length of the naval services of
Adams, who left Philadelphia about June 20, 1779; whereupon William
Whipple succeeded him as chairman of the Marine Committee.
[105] New Hampshire Gazette, June 1, 1776.
[106] Probably put upon the stocks at Salisbury and completed at
Newburyport.
[107] Edward Field, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
II, 423.
[108] Staples, Annals of Providence, 267-8; Marine Committee Letter
Book, Marine Committee to Stephen Hopkins, and Marine Committee
to Committee for Building the Continental Frigates at Providence,
October 9, 1776.
[109] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 526.
[110] Records of State of Connecticut, I, 177.
[111] Force, American Archives, 5th, II, 350, 636, 989; III, 827.
[112] Marine Committee Letter Book, Marine Committee to David
Stodder, master-builder, April 11, 1778.
[113] Journals of Continental Congress, April 23, 1776.
[114] Ibid., June 25, 1776.
[115] Force, American Archives, 5th, III, 671, 739-40. The first
prize agents to be appointed, many of whom held their offices
throughout the greater part of the Revolution, were as follows: John
Langdon, Portsmouth; John Bradford, Boston; Daniel Tillinghast,
Providence; Nathaniel Shaw, jr., New London; Jacobus Vanzant, New
York; John Nixon and John Maxwell Nesbit, Philadelphia; William
Lux, Baltimore; John Tazewell, Williamsburg; Robert Smith, Edenton;
Richard Ellis, Newbern; Cornelius Harnet, Wilmington; Livinus
Clarkson and John Dorsius, Charleston; John Wereat, Savannah; and
Okey Hoaglandt, New Jersey.
[116] Journals of Continental Congress, September 1, 1779.
[117] Force, American Archives, 5th, II, 1113-14.
[118] Journals of Continental Congress, October 28, November 6, 1776.
[119] Journals of Continental Congress, April 19, 1777.
[120] On May 6, 1777, John Adams wrote to James Warren notifying him
of his appointment. He added a few words explaining the character
of the position: “You will have the building and fitting of all
ships, the appointment of officers, the establishment of arsenals
and magazines, which will take up your whole time; but it will be
honorable to be so capitally concerned in laying a foundation of a
great navy. The profit to you will be nothing; but the honor and the
virtue the greater. I almost envy you this employment.”—Works of
John Adams, IX, 465. On May 9, the Rhode Island member of the Marine
Committee notified William Vernon of his appointment.—Publications
of the Rhode Island Historical Society, VIII, 206. See also
Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 7th, II, 45.
[121] New England Historical and Genealogical Register, XXX, 316-18.
[122] When the Navy Board at Philadelphia was being established
and its commissioners appointed, William Ellery wrote to William
Vernon as follows: “I should be glad to know what is the Office
of Commissioners of the Navy, and that you would point it out
particularly; unless you can refer me to some Author who particularly
describes. The Conduct of the Affairs of a Navy as well as those of
an Army, We are yet to learn. We are still unacquainted with the
systematical management of them, although We have made considerable
Progress in the latter. It is the Duty of every Friend to his Country
to throw his Knowledge into the common Stock. I know you are well
skilled in Commerce and I believe you are acquainted with the System
of the British Navy, and I am sure of your Disposition to do every
Service to the Cause of Liberty in your Power.”—Publications of Rhode
Island Historical Society, VIII, 201, Papers of William Vernon and
the Navy Board.
[123] Journals of Continental Congress, October 23, 1777.
[124] Ibid., May 9, 1778.
[125] Ibid., August 19, 1778.
[126] Ibid., September 28, 1778.
[127] Ibid., November 4, 1778.
[128] Marine Committee Letter Book, Marine Committee to Navy Board
of Middle Department, January 22, 1778. The Philadelphia Board was
ordered on January 22 to remove to Baltimore, but it appears that it
did not go until April.
[129] For salaries of the Commissioners of the Navy and their
employees, see Journals of Continental Congress, November 7, 1776;
April 19, 1777; October 23, 1777; October 10, 1778; October 31, 1778;
November 12, 1779; January 28, 1780; and September 25, 1780.
[130] Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Division of Manuscripts, Library of
Congress.
CHAPTER IV
THE WORK OF THE NAVY BOARDS AND THE MARINE COMMITTEE
There was a painful lack of system about the business methods of the
Naval Department of the Revolution. Then, official routine was not
settled as at present. Usage had had no opportunity to establish
fixed and orderly forms of procedure; and amid the distractions of
war, when some real or supposed emergency was continually inviting
one authority or another to disregard regularity and order, usage
could obtain but scant permission to begin its work. Wars are
famous for breaking through, not for forming a crust of official
precedent. The administrative machinery of armies and navies tends
to adapt itself to the conditions of peace—now the normal state of
nations. During long periods of partial stagnation this machinery
becomes complicated; its tension is weakened; and many of its
axles grow rusty from disuse. When war breaks out, the conditions
of administration are greatly changed. A thousand extra calls for
work to be done at once are loud and inexorable. Expedition must
be had at all hazards and costs. Rapid action of the administrative
machinery must be obtained, its tension screwed down, extra cog
wheels discarded, and efficient machinists substituted for the
dotards of peace. It is obvious that with this sort of difficulty
those who managed the naval affairs during the Revolution did not
have to contend, for the organ of naval administration was then
created from its foundation. Their difficulties sprang not from the
age, but from the newness of this organ. It lacked a nice correlation
of parts, the smooth action that comes from long service, and the
system that immemorial routine establishes.
The absence of system in the Naval Department was most conspicuous in
the appointment of naval officers, from the captain to the coxswain.
This work was shared by Congress, the Marine Committee, the Navy
Boards, the Continental agents, the Commander-in-chief of the navy,
the commanders of vessels, recruiting agents, the Commissioners at
Paris, and the commercial agents residing in foreign countries.
Appointments were sometimes actually determined by the governors
of states, “conspicuous citizens,” and local governmental bodies.
A good illustration of the way in which convenience was sometimes
consulted is found in the resolution of Congress of June 14, 1777,
which designated William Whipple, the New Hampshire member of the
Marine Committee, John Langdon, Continental agent at Portsmouth,
and John Paul Jones, the commander of the ship “Ranger,” to select
the commissioned and warrant officers of the “Ranger,” then at
Portsmouth.[131] In a new navy without _esprit de corps_, to permit a
commander to have a voice in choosing his own officers often made for
proper subordination.
It was a source of annoyance and confusion to the Navy Boards to
find through accidental sources of information, as they sometimes
did, that the Marine Committee had given orders to naval agents
to transact business, the immediate control of which was vested
in the Boards. Naval agents sometimes discovered that they were
serving in a single task two or three naval masters. Irregularities
were chargeable not alone to the Naval Department. The governor
of a state was known on his own authority, to the vexation of the
rightful executive, to take part in the direction of the cruises of
Continental vessels. Naval commanders were now and then guilty of
breaches of their orders. Congress had its share in the confusing
of business. On one occasion, making a display of its ignorance,
it suspended Captain John Roach from a command to which he had not
been appointed; Roach in fact was not an officer in the Continental
navy.[132] It sometimes made impracticable details of the armed
vessels. It also exercised its privilege of referring to special
committees bits of business that logically belonged to the Marine
Committee.
These irregularities, notwithstanding their number, were after all
exceptions. The very nature of business forces it to follow some
system, however imperfectly. Where there is a number of agents there
must be a division of labor. Without such arrangements chaos would
exist. It is therefore possible to set forth with some detail the
respective duties of the Marine Committee, the Navy Boards, and the
various naval agents. The work and duties of the naval agents have
already been treated with sufficient particularity. The work of the
Navy Boards and the Marine Committee will be considered in this
chapter.
The duties of the Navy Boards were of a varied character. Each Board
superintended the building, manning, fitting, provisioning, and
repairing of the armed vessels in its district. It kept a register
of the vessels which it built, showing the name, dimensions, burden,
number of guns, tackle, apparel, and furniture of each vessel. Each
Board had records of all the officers, sailors, and marines in its
district, and required the commanders to make returns of these items
upon the termination of their cruises. It was the duty of the Boards
to notify the Marine Committee of the arrivals and departures of
the Continental vessels. They were required to settle the naval
accounts and “to keep fair Books of all expenditures of Publick
Moneys.” The records of their transactions were to be open to the
inspection of Congress and the Marine Committee. They rendered to the
Committee annually, or oftener when required, an account of their
disbursements. The Boards paid the salaries of officers and seamen,
and audited the accounts of the prize agents.[133]
In the appointment of officers the Navy Board at Boston was given a
freer rein than was its colleague at Philadelphia. The share of the
Navy Boards in selecting officers and in enlisting seamen was about
as follows. The Boards superintended the appointing of petty officers
and the enlisting of seamen, both of which duties were chiefly
performed by the commanders of vessels and by recruiting agents. The
Boards generally selected the warrant officers, very frequently on
the recommendation of the commanders. If the one appointment to the
office of Commander-in-chief be disregarded, there existed but two
classes of commissioned officers in the Revolutionary navy, captains
and lieutenants. The Boards often chose the lieutenants; and they
generally recommended the captains to the Marine Committee. The
Committee furnished the Boards with blank warrants and commissions,
signed by the President of Congress. When one of these forms was
properly filled out by a navy board for an officer, the validity of
his title to his position and rank could not be questioned.
The Boards were empowered under certain circumstances, and in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the navy and the
resolutions of Congress, to order the holding of courts of enquiry
and courts-martial. They could administer oaths to the judges and
officials of these courts. A Board might suspend an officer of the
navy who treated it with “indecency and disrespect.”[134] On October
23, 1777, the Navy Board at Boston was given power to suspend a naval
officer, “until the pleasure of Congress shall be known.”[135] Not
always did the kindliest relations exist between the Navy Boards and
the commanders of the vessels. Officers who but yesterday tramped the
decks of their own merchantmen, giving commands but not receiving
them, chafed under the subordination that their position in the navy
exacted.
The Navy Boards made public the resolutions of Congress on naval
affairs, copies of which they lodged with the prize agents, the
commanders of vessels, and all interested persons. They distributed
among the naval captains the rules and regulations of the navy, the
sea-books, and the naval signals. The Boards acted in an advisory
capacity to the Marine Committee, which frequently called upon
them for information or opinions; when a revision of the rules and
regulations of the navy was under consideration their assistance
in the work was requested. Sometimes they volunteered important
suggestions looking to the betterment of the navy. They communicated
frequently with the Committee, giving in detail the state of the
naval business in their respective districts.
In the hiring, purchase, and building of vessels the Boards had to
do with craft of all sorts, freight-boats, fire-ships, galleys,
packets, brigs, schooners, sloops, ships, frigates, and men-of-war.
Measured by the standards of the time, the building of one of the
larger vessels was a work of some magnitude. A notion of the men
and materials requisite for such an undertaking may be gained from
an estimate, made early in 1780, of the sundries needed to complete
the 74-gun ship “America,” the largest of the Continental vessels
constructed during the Revolution. The construction of this ship had
been begun at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in 1777. It was computed
that one hundred and fifty workmen for an average period of eight
months would be required. Fifty carpenters, twenty ordinary laborers,
twenty caulkers, ten riggers, ten sailors, two master-builders, and
an uncertain number of blacksmiths, sailmakers, coopers, plumbers,
painters, glaziers, carvers, boat-builders, ship-copperers, tinners,
cabinet-makers, and tanners were demanded. Materials and provisions
were needed as follows: Seven hundred tons of timbers, one hundred
casks of naval stores, forty tons of iron, one thousand water-casks,
masts and spars of all sorts, sheets of lead, train oil, and
oakum; provisions for most of the above workmen, and lastly, an
indispensable lubricant for all naval services at this time, “rum,
one half pint per day, including extra hands, say for 150 hands, 8
months, 12 hhds, 1310 gallons.”[136] In building the armed vessels,
the Boards were greatly hampered by the difficulty of obtaining
artisans, owing to their being called out for military service, or to
their engaging in privateering. In providing armament and equipment,
they were embarrassed by the inexperience of the colonists in casting
cannon, and by the obstacles which they encountered in importing
canvas, cables, arms, and ammunition.
For the future use of the fleet the Navy Boards collected in due
season provisions and naval stores. In their work as purveyors for
the navy a knowledge of the baking of bread and the curing of meats
might not prove amiss. The kinds and quantities of provisions which
they bought may be judged from an estimate of the supplies that were
requisite to equip for sea and for a single cruise the 36-gun frigate
“Confederacy.” The names and quantities of the articles needed were
as follows: bread, 35,700 lbs.; beef, 15,300 lbs.; pork, 15,300 lbs.;
flour, 5,100 lbs.; potatoes, 10,000 lbs.; peas, 80 bus.; mutton,
2,500 lbs.; butter, 637 lbs.; rice, 2,550 lbs.; vinegar, 160 gals.;
and rum, 2,791 gals.[137] The Boards’ supplies of naval stores
consisted chiefly of canvas, sails, cordage, cables, tar, turpentine,
and ship chandlery.
The commissioners of each district made some division of their work
among themselves. For instance, the special task of Wharton of the
Philadelphia Board was the superintending of the accounting and the
naval finances of the Middle District. During 1778 Deshon of the
Boston Board spent much time in Connecticut attending to the naval
business in that state. This had to do chiefly with freeing the
“Trumbull” frigate from a sandbar upon which she had grounded. During
the same year Vernon was for a time at Providence endeavoring to
get to sea the Continental vessels which the British had blockaded
in that port. For a part of the year Warren alone attended to the
business of the Board at its headquarters at Boston. On August 4,
1778, Congress appropriated $365 to each of the commissioners of
the Navy Board at Boston to pay their traveling expenses during the
past year, since in the right discharge of their office they were
obliged “frequently to visit the different parts of their extensive
district.”[138]
In the extent of its powers and in the amount of its business the
Boston Board exceeded the one at Philadelphia.[139] This was largely
owing to the centering of naval affairs in New England after the
occupation of Philadelphia in September, 1777; and to the capture
or destruction in that year of a large part of the fleet to the
southward of New England. After 1776 all the new vessels added in
America to the navy, with the exception of two or three, were either
purchased or built in New England. The long distance of the Marine
Committee from Boston, with the consequent difficulties and delays in
communication, made it necessary for the Committee to grant to the
Boston Board larger powers than to the Philadelphia Board.
The most important work of a Naval Office is the directing of the
movements of the fleet, or in other words, the determining of the
cruises of the armed vessels. This power the Marine Committee
jealously guarded, and was loathe to yield any part of it. The
Committee was forced at times, however, to give to the Boston Board a
considerable discretion. In July, 1777, it ordered the Board to send
out the cruisers as fast as they could be got ready, “directing the
Commanders to such Latitudes as you shall think there will be the
greatest chance of success in intercepting the enemy’s Transports
and Merchant Ships”; and in November, 1778, to send the vessels
out, “either collectively, or singly, as you shall judge proper,
using your discretion as to the time for which their Cruises shall
continue, and your best judgment in directing the commanders to
such places and on such stations as you shall think will be for
the general benefit of the United States, and to annoy and distress
the Enemy.”[140] Such general orders were always subject to the
particular plans and directions of the Committee, which were by no
means few. The Committee itself determined the service of all vessels
that refitted at Philadelphia. As a consequence the duties of the
Navy Board of the Middle Department had to do chiefly with the minor
details of administration.
Turning now from the work of the Navy Boards to that of the Marine
Committee, one finds the significant fact to be the two-fold relation
that the Committee bore to the Continental Congress. By reason of the
union in Congress of both legislative and executive functions, the
Committee was at one and the same time an administrative organ of
Congress charged with executing the business of its Naval Department,
and its legislative committee on naval affairs. Naturally, there were
at points no lines of demarkation between these two functions; and it
is therefore not always easy, or even possible, to determine in which
capacity the Committee is acting. The Committee’s administrative
duties, _par excellence_, were the enforcing and the carrying out
by means of its agents of the various resolutions of Congress upon
naval affairs. Already much light has been thrown upon this phase
of the Committee’s work in the treatment of the Navy Boards and the
naval agents.
It was the duty of the Marine Committee to see that the resolutions
on naval affairs were brought to the attention of the proper
persons, officers, agents, and authorities. As the head of the Naval
Department, it issued its commands and orders to the Navy Boards,
the naval agents, and the commanders of vessels. This was done both
verbally and by letters. The Navy Board of the Middle Department,
the naval agents at Philadelphia, and often the naval officers in
that port, conferred with the Committee and received orders by word
of mouth. In the prosecution of its work outside of Philadelphia
the Committee conducted a large correspondence, chiefly with the
Navy Board at Boston, the naval agents at Portsmouth, Boston, New
London, and Baltimore, and the leading captains of the navy. It
addressed letters to the governors of most of the states and to many
of the local governmental authorities; to the Commander-in-chief
of the navy, Washington, General Heath, General Schuyler, the
Commissary-General of Prisoners, Commissary-General of Purchases
of the army, the merchants of Baltimore, Count D’Estaing, the
Commissioners in Paris, and most of the captains of the navy. This
list of correspondents well represents the range of the business of
the Committee.
Through its recommendations to Congress the Marine Committee
virtually selected almost all the captains of the navy and of the
marine corps, many lieutenants of both services, as a rule the
commissioners of the navy, the prize agents, and the advocates for
the trying of maritime causes. Appointments to these offices were
rarely made by Congress contrary to the recommendations of the
Committee, or on its own initiative independent of the Committee.
A few captains and lieutenants of the navy were appointed by
representatives of the United States residing abroad.
As is well known, all executive offices are called upon to
establish certain forms, rules, and regulations for the guidance
and government of their agents. Of this character was the fixing by
the Marine Committee of the naval signals, the forms for sea-books,
and the proper uniforms for the naval officers. The Committee’s
regulations on uniforms were dated September 5, 1776. For captains
they prescribed a blue coat “with red lappels, slash cuff, stand-up
collar, flat yellow buttons, blue britches, red waistcoat with
narrow lace.” The uniform of the officers of the marines was equally
resplendent in colors. It included a green coat, with white cuffs, a
silver epaulet on the shoulder, white waistcoat and breeches edged
with green, and black gaiters and garters. Green was the distinctive
color of the marines. The privates were to display this badge in the
form of green shirts, “if they can be procured.”[141] Not enough
information is accessible to the writer to determine what influence
the regulations prescribing the uniform of British officers had on
those adopted by the Marine Committee. Both required in the uniform
of captains, blue coats, standing-up collars, and flat buttons;
neither required epaulets, the wearing of which, as is well known,
originated in France.[142] It is probable that the prescribed uniform
was little worn by the Continental naval officers. Grim necessity
forced each officer to ransack whatever wardrobe Providence offered,
and it is somewhat inaccurate to call their miscellaneous garbs
“uniforms.”
As the Naval Office at Philadelphia developed, letters, memorials,
and petitions poured in upon it in increasing numbers. Many of
these communications were addressed to the President of Congress,
were read in Congress, and were formally referred to the Marine
Committee to be acted or reported upon. It was only infrequently that
Congress offered any suggestions as to their proper disposition.
These complaints and requests were of a varied character, and came
from many sources; not a few originated with that obsequious crowd,
with axes to grind, that always attends upon official bodies. The
wide range of these communications may be judged from the following
subjects selected at random:
New Hampshire and Massachusetts request that the frigates building
in those states be ordered to defend the New England coast.[143]
Governor Livingston of New Jersey asks for a naval office for a
relative, Musco Livingston.[144] Gerard, the minister of France
to the United States, wishes to know “the opinion of Congress
respecting his offering a premium to the owners of privateers that
shall intercept masts and spars belonging to the enemy, coming from
Halifax to New York and Rhode Island.”[145] John Macpherson asserts
that the position of commander-in-chief in the navy was promised
to him by Messrs. Randolph, Hopkins, and Rutledge, to whom he
communicated an important secret.[146] An affront has been offered
several French captains in Boston by the commander of the Continental
frigate “Warren.”[147] Twelve lieutenants, who had been dismissed
from the navy for combining in order to extort an increase of pay,
ask to be reinstated.[148] The ambassador of Naples at the Court of
France, whose king has opened his ports to the American vessels,
wishes “to know the colours of the flag, and form of the sea-papers
of the United States.”[149] Captain Biddle writes concerning the
cruel treatment inflicted by Lord Howe upon Lieutenant Josiah of the
Continental navy.[150] Captain Skimmer has been killed in an action
with the “Montague,” and has left eleven children, nine of whom are
unable to earn a livelihood. His widow asks for a pension.[151]
The Marine Committee made frequent reports to Congress, both in
response to previous orders therefrom, and of its own accord in
the course of its business. Occasionally parts of its reports were
recommitted by Congress to a limited number of the Committee’s
members, doubtless for the purpose of obtaining prompt and
expert action. The Committee sometimes assigned special business
to sub-committees, or to single members. The subjects which the
Committee considered, discussed, and reported upon ran the whole
gamut of naval activities and interests. The substance of many of
its reports may be found in the Journals of the Continental Congress
for the years 1776, 1777, 1778, and 1779. During this period the
Marine Committee prepared and reported the larger part of the
naval legislation of Congress. It is true that special committees
contributed something to this work, but these were composed in part
of members of the Marine Committee. Congress, as a body, originated
little, although occasionally it was moved to the passage of
resolutions on naval affairs by some real or supposed emergency,
the importunities of the self-seeking, or the whims of individual
members. It of course amended the reports of its committees.
The principal legislation of Congress relating to the navy which was
passed during the incumbency of the Marine Committee will now be
noted. No attempt will be made to separate those provisions that were
the special work of the Marine Committee from the whole legislative
output.
During 1776 and 1777 Congress authorized important naval increases.
It directed the Marine Committee in March and April, 1776, to
purchase “the armed vessel now in the river Delaware” and the ship
“Molly,” to fit out two armed cutters, and to build two galleys
“capable of carrying two 36 or 42 pounders.”[152] On November 20,
1776, Congress resolved to build immediately, one ship, 74, in New
Hampshire; two ships, 74 and 36, in Massachusetts; one ship, 74, a
brig, 18, and a packet boat, in Pennsylvania; two frigates, 36 each,
in Virginia; and two frigates, 36 each, in Maryland.[153] Later,
the size and armament of some of these vessels were reduced by the
Marine Committee, and some of them were never completed. Only three
of these ten vessels were armed, manned, and sent to sea as a part of
the forces of the Continental navy. They were the “Alliance,” 36, the
“General Gates,” 18, both built in Massachusetts, and the “Saratoga,”
16, built in Pennsylvania. The 74-gun ship “America,” constructed
at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, was not launched until shortly before
the Revolution ended. On January 23, 1777, Congress ordered the
construction of two frigates, 36 and 28, in Connecticut. These two
ships were named respectively the “Confederacy” and “Bourbon.” On
March 15, 1777, the Marine Committee was ordered to purchase three
ships.[154] Congress gave directions for other naval increases,
but they were not fully carried out. In July, 1777, owing to the
“extravagant prices now demanded for all kinds of materials used
in shipbuilding, and the enormous wages required by tradesmen and
labourers,” Congress empowered the Committee to stop the building of
such of the Continental vessels as they should judge proper.[155]
During 1776 many important appointments and promotions in the navy
and the marine corps were made by the Marine Committee, and confirmed
by Congress. Samuel Nichols was placed at the head of the marines,
with the rank of major. Twenty captains of the navy were appointed.
Four of these had been appointed lieutenants on December 22, 1775,
and were promoted, but the remaining sixteen were new appointees.
John Manly was taken from Washington’s fleet. Nicholas Biddle, Thomas
Read, Charles Alexander, and James Josiah had seen service in the
Pennsylvania navy; and James Nicholson in the Maryland navy. During
this year there was a great scramble to obtain offices on board the
thirteen frigates, and amid the rivalries of politics, it is not
surprising that some candidates were successful that, unfortunately
for the navy, had tasted little salt water.[156]
In military services questions of promotion and rank are perennial
sources of heartburning and jealousy. The advancing of an officer on
any other principle than that of seniority in service rarely fails
to arouse feelings of injustice and suspicions of partiality, which
are only too often warranted. The discontent and insubordination
that such a promotion incites must always be weighed against
its beneficial results. When, on October 10, 1776, Congress, in
determining the rank of twenty-four captains and two lieutenants,
disregarded the dates of their commissions and appointments, it was
unable to defend its act on the usual, and under some circumstances,
tenable ground of the conspicuous services, marked talents, and
signal professional skill of those favored. Once more Southern
influences prevailed, and James Nicholson, of Maryland, commander
of the frigate “Virginia,” was made the senior captain of the navy.
This distinguishing of Nicholson, who was appointed captain on June
6, 1776, worked a hardship to the officers, and especially to the
four captains, appointed on December 22, 1775. John Paul Jones, who
stood fifth in rank in the list of December 22, and now found himself
eighteenth, smarted under the injustice which was done him.[157] It
is noteworthy that from March, 1777, when Esek Hopkins was suspended
from his position of commander-in-chief of the fleet, until the end
of the Revolution, the head of the Continental army and the ranking
officer of the navy came from adjoining Southern states.[158]
On November 15, 1776, Congress fixed the relative rank of army and
naval officers as follows:[159]
Admiral, with General.
Vice-Admiral, with Lieutenant-General.
Rear-Admiral, with Major-General.
Commodore, with Brigadier-General.
Captain of a ship of 40 guns and upwards, with Colonel.
Captain of a ship of 20 to 40 guns, with Lieutenant-Colonel.
Captain of a ship of 10 to 20 guns, with Major.
Lieutenant of the navy, with Captain.
In this legislation on rank once more the influence of British models
is apparent. The Committee was evidently building for the future, for
the four higher ranks were not established at this time, nor during
the Revolution. The present relative rank of army and naval officers
is based on the above table.
On March 23, 1776, Congress passed most important resolutions
supplementary to those of November 25, 1775, concerning captures
and the shares of prizes. The resolutions of November 25 legalized
the capture of the enemy’s vessels of war and transports. The new
resolutions permitted for the first time the capture of all ships
and cargoes, “belonging to any inhabitant, or inhabitants of Great
Britain, taken on the high seas, or between high and low water
mark,” by American privateers, vessels of the Continental navy,
or ships fitted out by any of the colonies. In brief, the new
resolutions legalized reprisals on British commerce. In the case of
Continental vessels, one-third of the prize went to the officers
and crew; in the case of privateers, the whole of the prize fell
to the owners and captors. Each colony was permitted to fix the
shares of the proceeds of merchantmen captured by its own ships of
war.[160] On October 30, 1776, the share of prizes taken by vessels
of the Continental navy was increased to one-half of merchantmen,
transports, and store ships; and to the whole of ships of war and
privateers.[161]
On April 2, 1776, Congress agreed to a form of commission for
privateers. On the next day it resolved to send blank commissions,
signed by the President of Congress, to the legislatures, provincial
congresses, and committees of safety of the United Colonies. These
were to be filled out and delivered to privateersmen. Blank bonds,
which were to be executed by the owners or masters of privateers,
were also sent. These bonds, which prescribed a penalty of five
or ten thousand dollars, according to the size of the ship, were
intended to discourage or prevent misconduct and unwarrantable acts
on the part of officers and crews. Congress also drafted a form of
instructions to the commanders of privateers.[162]
Congress on November 15, 1776, established a new pay-table. Officers
were now divided into three classes, those serving on board of
vessels of 20 guns and upwards, vessels of 10 to 20 guns, and vessels
below 10 guns. The vessels of the first two classes were commanded
by captains, and of the third class by lieutenants. The pay of
the higher officers, which the new table generally raised, varied
for each of the three classes, the commanding officers of which
received, respectively, $60, $48, and $30 a month. Seamen were now
paid a monthly wage of $8. The pay of officers below the captain
ranged from $30 to $8.34 a month. A bounty of $20 for every cannon
and $8 for every seaman captured on board a British ship of war was
now voted.[163] On July 25, 1777, the “subsistence” of officers
while in foreign or domestic ports was fixed.[164] On January 19,
1778, Congress resolved that officers not in actual service should
be allowed pay, but not rations. While prisoners of war, their
allowance for rations was to be diminished by the value of the
supplies which they received from the enemy.[165] Pursers for vessels
of 16 guns and upwards were authorized on November 14, 1778.[166]
Additional interest attaches to the initial legislation on pensions
of the American government because of the unprecedented liberality
which now marks its treatment of its veterans. The first legislation
on naval pensions dates from the adoption by Congress on November 28,
1775, of a form of naval contract according to which certain bounties
were granted officers, seamen, and marines disabled from earning
a livelihood.[167] These bounties were derived from the proceeds
of prizes captured by the aid of the beneficiaries. A more typical
pension law was passed on August 26, 1776.[168] It had, however, a
vital defect in that it was left to the enforcement of the individual
states. According to its provisions every naval officer, seaman, or
marine, “belonging to the United States of America, who shall lose
a limb in any engagement in which no prize shall be taken, or be
therein otherwise so disabled as to be rendered incapable of getting
a livelihood, shall receive during his life, or the continuance of
such disability, one half of his monthly pay.” When a prize was
captured at the time the disability was contracted, the disabled
person’s share of prize money was considered as a part of his
half-pay. If the disabled person was rendered incapable of serving in
the navy, although not totally disabled from earning a livelihood,
he received a monthly sum, judged to be adequate by the legislature
of the state in which he resided. Each state was to determine which
of its citizens were entitled to a pension under this law, to pay
such persons their half-pay or allowance, and to make a quarterly
report of its work to the secretary of Congress. The distinguishing
characteristic of the law lay in its dependence on the states for its
enforcement. As might be expected, it was very imperfectly carried
out.
On September 25, 1778, Congress extended the advantages of the law
to all persons whose disabilities were acquired previous to August
26, 1776.[169] It is to be carefully noted that this was a pension
for disabilities and not for service—a fundamental classification
in pension law. An agitation for a service pension for life for the
officers of the army was made in and out of Congress for a long time,
until in 1780 it was at last successful.[170] Such emoluments were
not at this time granted to naval officers; it was probably argued
that their sharing in captured prizes offset the pensions of the army
officers. Then, too, the army had ways of gaining the attention of
Congress that the weak and insignificant navy did not possess.
Few more important duties fall to naval offices than the enforcing
of discipline in the navy by means of naval courts. Adams’s rules of
November 28, 1775, made provision for holding courts-martial, but
not courts of enquiry, which are a sort of grand jury or inquest.
They also provided that courts-martial should consist of at least
six naval officers, with six officers of marines, if so many of the
latter were convenient to the court.[171] The Committee and Navy
Boards at times found it impossible to assemble so many officers.
No definite procedure in investigating the loss of vessels was
prescribed by Adams’s rules. Additional legislation was therefore
demanded. On May 6, 1778, Congress adopted new regulations on naval
courts, which were to be operative for one year.[172] They provided
that, when a vessel of war was lost by capture or otherwise, a
court of enquiry should be held, “consisting of that navy board
which shall, by the marine committee of Congress, be directed to
proceed therein, or any three persons that such navy board may
appoint.” If the court of enquiry found that the loss of the vessel
was caused by the negligence or malconduct of any commissioned
officer, the Navy Board might suspend such officer pending his trial
by a court-martial, which, in the event that six naval officers
could not be assembled, was to consist of five men appointed by the
Navy Board. The permitting of civilians to sit upon naval courts
is the salient feature of these new resolutions, and is an anomaly
in naval judicature. They also provided that in cases where one or
more vessels out of a fleet were lost by capture or otherwise, the
commanders of the escaping vessels were to be tried by a similar
procedure. If a court-martial found that the loss of a vessel was
caused by the cowardice or treachery of the commanding officer, it
was directed to inflict the death penalty. On August 19, 1778, the
procedure established on May 6 was extended to “all offences and
misdemeanors in the marine department.”[173] The proceedings of
courts-martial were forwarded to the Marine Committee, which laid
them, together with its recommendations thereupon, before Congress
for final action.
During the incumbency of the Marine Committee a number of interesting
and important naval trials were held. Captain Thomas Thompson in 1778
and Captain Dudley Saltonstall in 1779 were broken by courts-martial.
Other captains who lost their vessels were tried, but escaped so
severe a punishment. The cases growing out of Commodore Hopkins’s
expedition to New Providence, his engagement with the “Glasgow,” and
the immediately succeeding events of his fleet in the spring of 1776
deserve more extended notice. During the summer of 1776 the Marine
Committee ordered Commodore Hopkins and Captains Dudley Saltonstall
and Abraham Whipple to leave the fleet, which was then stationed in
Rhode Island, and to come to Philadelphia for trial. After calling
before it the inferior officers of the “Alfred” and “Columbus,” and
hearing their complaints against the two captains, the Committee
reported to Congress on July 11 that the charge against Captain
Saltonstall was not well founded, and that the charge against Captain
Whipple “amounts to nothing more than a rough, indelicate mode of
behaviour to his marine officers.” Congress ordered the two captains
to repair to their commands, and recommended Captain Whipple “to
cultivate harmony with his officers.”[174]
Commodore Hopkins was not to get off so easily. His whole
conduct since he left Philadelphia early in January, 1776, was
investigated. The principal charge against him was the disobeying
of the instructions of the Naval Committee of January 5, 1776, to
attack the forces of the enemy in the region of Virginia and the
Carolinas. Hopkins based his defence on the statement that the enemy
in that region had become too strong to attack by the time his
fleet had sailed on February 17, and also on a certain clause in
his instructions granting him discretionary powers.[175] After the
Marine Committee had investigated the case, and reported upon it,
Congress, on August 12, took into consideration the “instructions
given to Commodore Hopkins, his examination and answers to the Marine
Committee, and the report of the Marine Committee thereupon; also,
the farther defence by him made, and the testimony of the witnesses.”
On the 15th, Congress came to the resolution: “That the said
commodore Hopkins, during his cruise to the southward, did not pay
due regard to the tenor of his instructions ... and, that his reasons
for not going from Providence immediately to the Carolinas, are by no
means satisfactory.” The next day Congress resolved, “that the said
conduct of commodore Hopkins deserves the censure of this house, and
this house does accordingly censure him.”[176]
This action seems more severe than the facts justify. John Adams,
who defended Hopkins, had with difficulty prevented Congress from
cashiering the Commodore. According to Adams’s view, Hopkins was
“pursued and persecuted by that anti-New-England spirit which haunted
Congress in many other of their proceedings, as well as in this
case.”[177] The action of Congress may be interpreted differently.
Hopkins had not met the expectations of Congress or the Marine
Committee. As the head of the fleet, blame naturally fell upon him,
whether he deserved it or not. He had his shortcomings as a naval
officer, and failure magnified them. By placing the blame upon him,
the skirts of Congress, of the Marine Committee, and of the other
naval officers were cleared, and the hopes of a few self-interested
men were brightened.
Commodore Hopkins’s failure to carry out the plans of the Marine
Committee during the fall of 1776, together with the partial
inaction of the fleet under his command, increased his disfavor with
Congress and the Marine Committee. His praiseworthy endeavors to man
and prepare his fleet for sea won for him the enmity of the owners
of privateers at Providence, for his success would mean the taking
of men and materials sorely needed by the privateersmen. Hopkins’s
intemperate language, lack of tact, and naval misfortunes bred a
spirit of discontent, and gave an excuse for insubordination among
his inferior officers. Encouraged by the discontented privateersmen
of Providence, ten of the inferior officers of the “Warren,”
the Commodore’s flagship, signed a petition and certain letters
containing complaints and charges against Hopkins, and sent their
documents to the Marine Committee. They were taken to Philadelphia by
the chief “conspirator,” Captain John Grannis of the marines. These
documents asserted that Hopkins had called the members of the Marine
Committee and of Congress “ignorant fellows-lawyers, clerks-persons
who don’t know how to govern men;” that he was “remarkably addicted
to profane swearing;” that he had “treated prisoners in a most
inhuman and barbarous manner;” that he was a “hindrance to the proper
manning of the fleet;” and that “his conversation is at times so wild
and orders so unsteady that I have sometimes thought he was not in
his right mind.” Besides these accusations, there were a few others
of even less substantial character.[178]
On March 25, 1777, the Marine Committee laid before Congress the
complaints and charges against Commodore Hopkins, and on the next
day Congress took them into consideration; whereupon it resolved
that “Esek Hopkins be immediately, and he is hereby, suspended from
his command in the American navy.”[179] Hopkins remained suspended
until January 2, 1778. The Journals of Congress for this date contain
the following entry: “Congress having no farther occasion for the
service of Esek Hopkins, esq. who, on the 22nd of December, 1775, was
appointed commander in chief of the fleet fitted out by the naval
committee, Resolved, That the said Esek Hopkins, esq. be dismissed
from the service of the United States.”[180]
Hopkins’s suspension and removal did not in any way improve the navy.
Indeed, it was far less fortunate in 1777, than it had been in 1776.
That its chief officer should have been suspended without a hearing,
on flimsy charges, offered by a small number of inferior officers
whose leader was guilty of insubordination, convicts Congress of
acting with undue haste and of doing a possible injustice, and
arouses the suspicion that it was not actuated wholly by a calm
and unbiased judgment. The wording of Hopkins’s dismissal seems
needlessly curt, and harsh. Since Hopkins had lost the confidence
of Congress, the Marine Committee, and many of his countrymen, his
removal from the office of commander-in-chief to that of a captain
might have been justified.
On January 13, 1778, Hopkins brought a suit for libel against the
ten officers concerned in the “conspiracy,” fixing his damages at
£10,000. On July 30 Congress passed a resolution for defraying the
reasonable expenses of the ten officers in defending their suit.[181]
The case was tried before a jury in the Inferior Court of Common
Pleas of Rhode Island. The decision was unfavorable to Hopkins, as
the jury brought in a verdict for “the defendants and their costs.”
The victory of the opposition to the Commodore was complete. He had
not, however, lost the confidence of his fellow townsmen. He served
in the General Assembly of his state, representing North Providence
from 1777 until 1786, and he was from 1777 until the end of the
Revolution a member of the Rhode Island Council of War.[182] No one
who knew Hopkins intimately ever doubted his courage, his patriotism,
or his honesty of purpose.
The arrival off the Delaware Capes, on July 8, 1778, of twelve sail
of the line and four frigates under the command of Count D’Estaing,
Vice-Admiral of France, threw additional work upon the Naval
Department. No sooner did the Marine Committee learn of the presence
of the French, than it exerted itself to supply the table of its
naval guests with eatables and drinkables. Casks of fresh water,
several hundred barrels of bread and flour, and a small supply of
fresh provisions, were at once sent to the Count, and the Committee
ordered a commissary to collect for the use of the French fleet fifty
bullocks, seven hundred sheep, a number of poultry, and a quantity of
vegetables. After the ill-starred expedition against Rhode Island in
August, 1778, when the French fleet put into Boston for repairs, its
provisioning again became a care to the Naval Department. The Marine
Committee ordered three thousand barrels of flour to be sent on from
Albany for the use of the French.[183]
The distinction of having performed the first work of a consular
bureau in the United States belongs to the Marine Committee, since
it had charge of the publication and record of the first consular
appointments to this country. In accordance with the first commercial
treaty between the United States and France, Gerard, the French
minister, soon after his arrival in America in July, 1778, appointed
John Holker, consul for the port of Philadelphia, and in September
named a vice-consul for the same place. The latter appointment
Congress referred to the Marine Committee “in order that the same may
be made public.” A similar disposition was made of the appointments
of consuls for Maryland, South Carolina, and Boston, and of the
vice-consuls for Alexandria (Virginia), and Virginia. In the case of
the vice-consul for Virginia, Congress ordered the Marine Committee
to “cause the commission of Mr. d’Annemours to be recorded in the
book by them kept for that purpose, and his appointment made known
to all concerned.” The Committee was instrumental in obtaining the
settling of the powers and duties of consuls as regards the United
States and France. On August 2, 1779, the control of consular affairs
was removed from the Marine Committee and vested in the Secretary of
Congress.[184]
FOOTNOTES:
[131] Journals of Continental Congress, June 14, 1777.
[132] Journals of Continental Congress, June 14, 1777. Marine
Committee Letter Book, Committee to Navy Board at Boston, March 6,
1778.
[133] Publications of Rhode Island Historical Society, VIII, 208,
Instructions of Marine Committee to the Eastern Navy Board, July 10,
1777.
[134] Journals of Continental Congress, December 30, 1777. The
occasion of this grant of power by Congress was a letter complaining
of “disrespect and ill treatment” which a member of the Navy Board
of the Middle Department had received at the hands of John Barry,
commander of the frigate “Effingham.”
[135] Journals of Continental Congress, October 23, 1777.
[136] Records and papers of Continental Congress, 37, p. 217.
[137] Records and papers of Continental Congress, 37, p. 273.
[138] Journals of Continental Congress, August 4, 1778.
[139] In the transmission of foreign mail the Navy Board at Boston
acted as the agent of the Committee of Foreign Affairs. It both
purchased and hired packet boats.
[140] Marine Committee Letter Book Committee to Navy Board at Boston,
July 11, 1777; November 16, 1778.
[141] Sherburne, Life of John Paul Jones, ed. 1851, 30. Copies of the
regulations on uniforms will be found in John Paul Jones manuscripts,
Library of Congress.
[142] Clowes, Royal Navy, III, 347-50; IV, 182.
[143] Force, American Archives, 5th, II, 315.
[144] Journals of Continental Congress, September, 17, 1779.
[145] Ibid., December 7, 1778.
[146] Ibid., July 11, 1776.
[147] Ibid., June 16, 1778.
[148] Journals of Continental Congress, July 23, 24, 1777.
[149] Ibid., February 24, 1779.
[150] Ibid., August 7, 1776.
[151] Ibid., September 14, 23, 1778. The Marine Committee reported
and Congress agreed that “the eastern navy board be directed to
supply 400 dollars annually, in quarterly payments, for the support
of Captain Skimmer’s widow and nine youngest children, and that this
provision be continued three years.” This is the first instance of
the granting by the United States of a pension to the family of a
naval officer upon his death.
[152] Journals of Continental Congress, March 13, March 28, April 3,
April 14, 1776.
[153] Ibid., November 20, 1776.
[154] Journals of Continental Congress, January 23, March 15, 1777.
[155] Ibid., July 25, 1777.
[156] Journals of Continental Congress, June 25, October 10, 1776;
Scribner’s Magazine, XXIV, 29, Mahan, John Paul Jones in the
Revolution, quotes a member of Congress writing to Jones probably
in the fall of 1776: “You would be surprised to hear what a vast
number of applications are continually making for officers of the new
frigates, especially for the command.”
[157] Jones made a copy of the list of captains of the navy arranged
in accordance with their respective ranks, upon which copy he
commented: “Whereby No. 18 is superseded by ... 13 [men] ... altho
their superior Merits and Abilities are at best Presumptive, and not
one of them was in the service the 7th day of December, 1775, when
No. 18 was appointed Senior Lieut of the Navy.”—Jones Manuscripts,
Library of Congress.
[158] Nicholson, while at times displaying conspicuous bravery, was
less fortunate in his naval service than Hopkins. Two frigates under
his command were at different times captured by the enemy. On May 1,
1777, Congress suspended him from his command, “until he shall have
made such satisfaction as shall be accepted by the executive powers
of the state of Maryland, for the disrespectful and contemptuous
letter written by him to the governor of that state.”—Journals of
Continental Congress, May 1, 1777.
[159] Journals of Continental Congress, November 15, 1776.
[160] Journals of Continental Congress, March 23, 1776.
[161] Ibid., October 30, 1776.
[162] Journals of Continental Congress, April 2, April 3, 1776.
[163] Ibid., November 15, 1776.
[164] Ibid., July 25, 1777.
[165] Journals of Continental Congress, January 19, March 20, 1778.
[166] Ibid., November 14, 1778.
[167] See Chapter I, page 46.
[168] Journals of Continental Congress, August 26, 1776. This law
applied to both the army and the navy.
[169] Journals of Continental Congress, September 25, 1778.
[170] Harvard Historical Studies, X, L. C. Hatch, Administration of
American Revolutionary Army, Chapter V, Pay and Half-pay.
[171] See Chapter I, page 45.
[172] Journals of Continental Congress, May 6, 1778.
[173] Journals of Continental Congress, August 19, 1778.
[174] Journals of Continental Congress, July 11, 1776.
[175] Edward Field’s Esek Hopkins, 154-56, quotes words of Hopkins in
his own defence. Washington feared the plan of the Naval Committee
would fail as the enemy must know it, so long had the fleet been
fitting for sea.—Ford, Writings of Washington, III, 319.
[176] Journals of Continental Congress, August 12, 15, and 16, 1776.
[177] Quoted in Field’s Esek Hopkins, 158.
[178] Edward Field’s Esek Hopkins, Chapter VI, Conspiracy and
Dismissal, contains many original documents.
[179] Journals of Continental Congress, March 25, March 26, 1777.
[180] Ibid., January 2, 1778.
[181] Journals of Continental Congress, July 30, 1778.
[182] Edward Field’s Esek Hopkins, 237-38.
[183] Marine Committee Letter Book, Committee to Count D’Estaing,
July 12, July 17, 1778.
[184] Journals of Continental Congress, July 23, September 24,
October 27, November 4, 1778; January 21, June 7, 22, 23, July 30,
August 2, 1779.
CHAPTER V
THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONTINENTAL NAVAL SERVICE
The nineteenth century worked its marvels on sea as well as on land.
The progress of invention, the discovery of new sources of wealth and
power in nature and in man, and the development of powerful states,
have revolutionized transportation and communication by sea, maritime
pursuits, and naval science. Commerce has found fleeter wings; and
it no longer waits on the caprice of Aeolus. Countless steamships
with enormous tonnage and high rates of speed have in large measure
supplanted the small, snaillike sailing craft of our fathers. The
hazards of sea-going trade have been greatly reduced. Invention has
pacified Neptune’s fierce temper. The breed of pirates and corsairs
has been exterminated by the long muscular arm of the modern state.
The privations of ocean-travel which were distressing accompaniments
of the colonial period in America, were succeeded about the middle of
the last century by the comforts of the first steamships, and these
within the memory of young men have yielded to the luxuries of the
floating palaces of the sea.
Complementary to these transformations in commerce, navigation, and
travel by sea, have come improved methods of their defence. Modern
naval science in all of its aspects has been developed. Glancing for
a moment in retrospect at the long line of naval progress, one sees
it pass from the ancient row-galleys, to the sailing ship of the
early Modern Age, and from thence to the steamships of to-day. The
motive power has changed from human muscle to wind, and from wind to
steam. Placed beside the iron-clad battleships, the light, wooden
frigates of the Revolution look almost as antiquated as the Greek
galley with its figured prow. Smart, trim, beautiful vessels were
the Revolutionary craft, but how small, simple, and crude they now
appear. Indeed, a new type of poet, one who loves raw force first,
and the picturesque afterwards, has risen to sing the glories of new
navies and new seas.
Other naval changes have been made, as significant as those in
style of vessel and motive power. Ships of war now wear heavy
coats-of-mail. The “great guns” and the “long guns” of the Revolution
are neither great nor long beside modern cannon. A new type of
sea officer has been trained to meet the new conditions of naval
service. It would puzzle a modern officer to take a schooner from
Boston to Plymouth, for his seamanship is now fitted to steamships.
By over-study of modern armament, torpedo boats, and the latest
naval manœuvres, his “weather eye” has lost something of its skill
for reading in the skies the coming of storms or sunshine. Trim and
immaculate in their uniforms, the American naval officers of to-day,
who have entered the naval profession by the way of their technical
studies at Annapolis, little resemble their hardy prototypes in the
Continental navy, to whom clung the barnacles of their apprenticeship
aboard merchantmen.
Notwithstanding this revolution in naval science, a consideration
of the conditions of the Continental naval service and of the naval
policy of the Marine Committee has to-day a practical value for naval
experts. Certain fundamental principles in naval science do not
change. Captain Mahan, in his “Influence of Sea Power upon History,”
has pointed out that, while naval tactics vary with the improvements
in the motive power and armament of fleets, the basic principles of
naval strategy do not. They are as enduring as the order of nature.
For example, one cannot conceive that there will come a time when
an inversion will be made of the strategic principle, that an enemy
should be struck at his weak point. Captain Mahan even finds it worth
while, for the benefit of his fellow-experts, to set forth with some
detail the naval strategy of the Carthaginian wars.
When America, in these first years of the twentieth century, makes an
invoice of her resources, she counts first her great prairies of the
Mississippi basin, her rich mines of the Alleghanies and Rockies, and
her wealth of manufactories and their products. In 1775 her assets
were of a different sort. America then was a mere strip of seacoast,
cut into a series of peninsulas by the lower courses of a number of
navigable rivers. Her interests and her wealth then were much more
largely maritime than now. Attention has already been directed to
the wide pursuit of commerce, shipbuilding, fishing, and whaling in
New England. It remains, to be said that in the Middle and Southern
colonies commerce and shipbuilding were important industries. During
the Revolution Virginia put more naval ships afloat than any other
colony. In the colonial period communication between the towns of
the colonies was best by water. The inhabitants of America, during
this period, were amphibious. They have lost this quality, for
their character is now fixed by the “West,” and not by the Atlantic
seaboard. In 1775 America had, relatively, many more seamen than in
1898.
In the light of these facts it seems somewhat singular that the
Revolutionary navy was forced to spend most of its days in port,
vainly trying to enlist seamen for its depleted crews. To be sure the
lack of sufficient armament, naval stores, and provisions was felt,
but it was the lack of sailors that constituted the chief obstacle
to the success of the Continental navy. Those vessels that finally
weighed anchor were wanting as a rule in this prime naval requisite.
The same causes that prevented seamen from enlisting lowered the
quality of those that did enlist, and kept them from entering for
longer than a single cruise. A ship’s complement of sailors was often
ill-assorted. Seamen were improvised from landsmen; captured British
seamen were coaxed into service; and for one cause or another many
nationalities at times shipped side by side. These conditions made
for insubordination, and even mutiny. On one occasion seventy or
eighty British sailors, who were enlisted on board the Continental
frigate “Alliance,” bound for France, planned to mutiny and carry the
frigate into an English port. In order to obtain seamen many measures
were resorted to by Congress, the states, the Marine Committee, Navy
Boards, and commanders of vessels. Premiums for importing seamen
were given to foreigners;[185] wages were advanced to recruits;[186]
attempts were made to place embargoes upon privateers;[187]
bounties were paid to seamen enlisting for a year;[188] inducements
were offered to those captured from the enemy to get them to enter
the American service;[189] some seamen were impressed; glowing
advertisements were inserted in the public prints;[190] and
broadsides, which cleverly recited the many advantages of the
Continental service, were displayed in sundry taverns.[191]
All these efforts were defeated by the seductive allurements of
privateering. The Revolutionary Congress was poor and paid poor
wages. After its seamen had enlisted, they were toled away by
mercenary privateersmen. These same privateersmen were accused of
taking the naval stores and the artisans of Congress in order to fit
out their own ships. The owners and commanders of privateers, as they
received the whole of their captures, could afford to treat their
crews liberally. It was generally asserted that they paid higher
wages than did Congress or the states. Privateering was more popular,
more elastic, and more irregular than the other naval services.
When no one was looking, parts of cargoes could more readily be
appropriated for private use without waiting the tedious process
of the admiralty courts. Privateersmen could devote all their time
and energy to commerce-destroying, unfettered by the miscellaneous
duties which often fell to naval ships.
The backbone of the privateering interest was in New England. Silas
Deane said in 1785 that four out of every five of the privateers of
the Revolution came from the states north and east of the Delaware
river. This probably overstates the proportion in favor of the
northern states.[192] Pennsylvania and Maryland did considerable
business, but farther to the southward the industry was less
flourishing. The Virginia privateers did little. Massachusetts sent
out one-third of all the privateers. From 1777 until 1783, inclusive,
the Massachusetts Council issued 998 commissions. In 1779, 184 prizes
captured by privateers were libelled in the three admiralty courts
of this state. The average burden of these captured vessels was one
hundred tons. Rhode Island’s best year was probably in 1776, when
thirty-eight vessels were libelled at Providence. A list of 202
privateers has been made out for Connecticut. In 1779 twenty-nine
vessels taken from the British by privateers were libelled in the
Pennsylvania court of admiralty. During the last six years of the war
Maryland issued about 250 commissions. Boston was the chief center
for fitting out privateers and for selling their prizes, although
towns like Salem and Marblehead did a thriving business.[193]
Not a few of the failures and misfortunes of the Continental navy
are to be laid at the doors of the Yankee privateersmen, whose love
for Mammon exceeded that for their country.[194] A more patriotic
course was to have been expected of certain substantial merchants
who embarked in the business of commerce-destroying. But on the
other hand, one might easily be too severe on many bold, simple,
seafaring folk. The war, which deprived them of their gainful
pursuits at sea, now pointed the way, as a recompense, to a new and
attractive calling. Wives and babies were still to be fed, and plans
for sweethearts to be realized. The new trade was as alluring as a
lottery. Had not a neighbor drawn a competence sufficient for almost
a lifetime by a successful haul of the enemy’s rich West Indiamen?
It was true that another neighbor, who but recently sailed proudly
for sea with women-folk waving a last good-bye, now languished in
a prison-ship off New York, or was starving in the old Mill prison
at Plymouth, England. “But then a man must take his chances,” each
privateersman argued, “and it may be I, who by a fortunate cruise
shall bring home enough Jamaica rum to fairly float my schooner, and
every pint of it is as good as gold coin.”
Due credit must always be given to the hardy and venturesome
privateersmen for supplying the army and navy with the sinews of
war, which they captured. To be sure, if Congress or the states
wished their captured property, it was to be had by paying a good
round price for it in the open market. Even here the government’s
agents sometimes suspected collusions between the buyers and the
agents of the captors to run up prices to the disadvantage of the
government.[195] The privateersmen were engaged not in patriotic,
but business ventures. Could one-half of this irregular service have
been enlisted in the Continental and state navies, the other half
could not have been better employed than in its work of distressing
the enemy’s commerce, transports, and small letters of marque.
Zealous eulogists of the privateers have overrun the cup of their
merit. They have not always pointed out that the number of American
privateers, merchantmen, fishermen, and whalemen captured by British
privateers and small naval craft was comparable to the number of
similar British vessels taken by the American privateers. The prison
ships and naval prisons of the enemy at New York, in Canada, the
British West Indies, and England were at times crowded with Americans
captured at sea.[196] A few of these men England enlisted in her
navy; and with others she manned a whaling-fleet for the coast of
Brazil composed of seventeen vessels. It is, however, worthy of
note that the supplies captured from the British were often almost
indispensable to the colonists; while similar captures made by the
British had to the captors little value.
Another factor in the naval situation of the Americans was
the existence of state navies in Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina. The fleet of Massachusetts, comprising
sixteen armed vessels, was the most active and effective of the
state fleets. The Virginia navy numbering about fifty vessels, was
poorly equipped and rendered little service. These fleets were made
up of all sorts of naval craft; sailing vessels variously rigged,
fire-ships, floating batteries, barges, row-galleys with and without
sails, half-galleys, and boats of all sizes. Most of this craft was
designed for the defence of coasts, rivers, and towns. This was
especially true of the galleys, which were shallow vessels, some
seventy or eighty feet in length, carrying two or three cannon,
sometimes as large as 36’s or 42’s. Only some sixty of these vessels
of the state navies were well adapted for deep-sea navigation.[197]
To a limited extent both privateers and state vessels were placed at
the service of the Marine Committee. There were cruises, expeditions,
and defences of towns, in which two, or the three, services
participated. In such cases the senior Continental captain was
regularly the ranking officer, or the commodore of the fleet, as it
was then expressed. To the extent that state vessels and privateers
might be concerted with the Continental vessels, it would seem at
first blush that they undoubtedly were elements of naval strength
to the Marine Committee. This was by no means true. These concerted
expeditions proved disappointing, and when too late the Committee
became wary of them. Proper subordination, upon which naval success
so much depends, could not be obtained in these mixed fleets. The
commander of a state vessel or the master of a privateer, for aught
either could see, subtended as large an angle in maritime affairs, as
an officer of Congress, which body was to them nebulous, uncertain,
and irresolute.
If the location and physical form of colonial America with reference
to the sea tended to develop a maritime people, they also made most
difficult the problems of naval defence. As has been pointed out,
the territory of the revolting colonies comprised a narrow band of
seacoast divided into a number of peninsulas. All the large towns
were seaports. Had the peninsulas been islands, their defence against
the great sea-power of England would have been an impossibility. The
connections by land on the west side of the thirteen colonies gave
Washington a most valuable line of communications from Canada to
Florida. Had the revolting territory lain compactly, approaching a
square in shape, with a narrow frontage on the sea, its naval defence
would have been a simple problem.
Having decided late in 1775 to make a naval defence, Congress early
in 1776 took into consideration the establishing of one or more bases
for naval operations.[198] There were needed one or more strongly
fortified ports where the Continental fleet and its prizes would be
comparatively secure from attack, and where the armed vessels could
equip, man, and refit. The ports best adapted for naval stations were
Boston, New York, Philadelphia, some point on or near the James river
in Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina. Lesser towns had their
advocates and their hopes. In February, 1776, Gurdon Saltonstall of
Connecticut wrote to Silas Deane that New London would be “the Asylum
of Cont. Navey,” for “one they must have of necessity.”[199] The
Southern ports were not available for several reasons, but chiefly
on account of their distance from the center of maritime interests
in New England. New York was occupied by the British. Philadelphia
had many points in its favor, not the least of which was the location
there of Congress and the Marine Committee. Its occupation for a time
by the enemy in 1777 and 1778, and the close watch which his armed
vessels maintained at the mouth of Delaware Bay, greatly impaired
its usefulness as a harbor of refuge for the Continental vessels.
Boston was by far the most available port. After its abandonment
by the British in March, 1776, and the shifting of the theater of
the war first to the Middle and later to the Southern states, it
was left comparatively free from British interference. It was the
naval emporium of the Revolution, where naval stores, armament and
equipment for vessels of war, seamen, and ships could be procured, if
they were to be had at all.
The British had naval bases in America that left little to be
desired. When they seized New York in September, 1776, they obtained
not only a military point of the highest strategic value, but
also a secure naval station for fitting out and refitting their
privateers and naval ships. From New York, centrally situated with
reference to the revolting colonies, their vessels proceeded along
the Atlantic coast both northward and southward on the outlook for
American merchantmen, privateers, and naval craft. Their favorite
patrolling grounds were off the entrances of Delaware, Chesapeake,
and Narragansett bays. British vessels were also to be found off
Boston Bay, Ocracoke Inlet, Cape Fear, Charleston, and Savannah. The
British occupation of Newport from 1776 to 1779, and of Savannah
from 1778, and Charleston from 1780, to the end of the war, afforded
other convenient stations for British operations against the shipping
of the colonies. St. Augustine was a port of much importance in
the movements of the enemy’s smaller ships. The naval stations at
Halifax, Jamaica, and the Bermudas, while not so convenient as those
enumerated, were sources of naval strength to the British. Halifax
was a base for the naval operations against New England. It scarcely
needs to be said that the ports mentioned were in a way secondary
bases of operations, and that England’s center for ships, seamen, and
supplies of all sorts was the British Isles.
From this account of the respective naval stations in America of
the two combatants, one proceeds naturally to a comparison of their
fleets. The rude naval craft of the Americans, two-thirds of which
were made-over merchantmen, was outclassed by the vessels of the
Royal Navy at every point. Disregarding the fleets of Washington and
Arnold, there were during the Revolution fifty-six armed vessels
in the American navy, mounting on the average about twenty guns.
The vessels in the British navy when the Revolution opened in 1775
numbered 270, and when it closed, 468.[200] Of this latter number,
174 were ships of the line, each mounting between sixty and one
hundred guns. The naval force of the Americans when it was at its
maximum in the fall of 1776 consisted of 27 ships, mounting on the
average twenty guns.[201] At the same time the British had on the
American station, besides a number of small craft, 71 ships, which
mounted on the average twenty-eight guns.[202] Of these, two were
64’s; one, a 60; seven, 50’s; and three, 44’s. The British vessels,
being so much larger than the American, were naturally armed with
much heavier guns. Very few 18-pounders were to be found in the
Continental navy. The frigates were usually mounted with 12’s, 9’s,
and 6’s; and many of the smaller craft with 6’s and 4’s. The guns on
the larger British ships mounted 18’s, 24’s, 32’s, and 42’s.
An exhibition of figures showing the difference in size between
one of the largest of the frigates built by the Marine Committee
in 1776 and a typical 100-gun ship of the line of the Royal Navy
is interesting not only by way of comparison, but also as giving
a notion of the size of Revolutionary naval craft. The figures in
feet for the American 32-gun frigate, “Hancock,” and for the British
100-gun ship, “Victory,” respectively, were as follows: Length of gun
deck, 137 and 186; length of keel, 116 and 151; width of beam, 34
and 52; depth, 12 and 22. The tonnage of the “Hancock’s” companion
frigate, the “Boston,” was 515 tons; of the “Alfred,” the first ship
fitted out by Congress, 200 tons.[203] Continental naval craft,
such as the “Cabot,” “Wasp,” and “Fly,” were smaller still than the
“Alfred.”
The number of seamen and marines in the Continental navy is believed
not to have exceeded at any time three thousand men. The exact number
of commissioned officers in the Continental navy and marine corps
may not as yet have been ascertained. Owing to the diffusion of the
power of appointment, the Naval Department of the Revolution seems
to have prepared no perfect list of its officers. The best list of
commissioned officers, and one that in all probability needs few
corrections was compiled in 1794 in the Auditor’s Office, Department
of the Treasury.[204] This gives the names of 1 commander-in-chief,
45 captains, and 132 lieutenants, or 178 commissioned officers
in all, in the navy proper; and 1 major, 31 captains, and 91
lieutenants, or 123 commissioned officers, in the marine corps. With
the exception of the years 1776 and 1777, when the total number of
officers in actual service was about one-half of the above figures,
the number of officers at sea or attached to vessels in ports was
much less than one-half. In 1902 the American navy consisted of 899
commissioned officers of the line, arranged in eight grades.
In 1775 the British navy contained 18,000 seamen and marines, and
when the war closed in 1783 this number had risen to 110,000. The
total “extra” and “ordinary” expenses of the Royal Navy from 1775 to
1783, as voted by Parliament, amounted to £8,386,000.[205]
Both Continental and state naval services suffered from the lack of
_esprit de corps_, naval traditions, and a proper subordination and
concert of action between officers and crews. Bravery is often a poor
substitute for organization and naval experience and skill. Navies
can be grown, but not created. The quality of the Continental naval
officers, diluted it is true by the presence of a few “political
skippers,” was upon the whole as high as the circumstances of their
choice and the naval experience of the country admitted. Many of them
were drawn from the merchant service, and a few had had some months’
experience in state navies. Six captains appointed by Washington
entered the service of the Marine Committee.
The vessels of the Continental navy were procured and managed
under several Continental auspices. The Marine Committee, with its
predecessor and its successors in naval administration was the chief
naval administrative organ of the Revolutionary government. We have
already seen, however, that Washington fitted out one fleet in New
England and another in New York; and that Arnold fought with still
another fleet, one of the most important naval engagements of the
Revolution. In a succeeding chapter we shall find that the American
representatives in France, who were responsible to the Foreign Office
of Congress, and the Continental agent at New Orleans, who worked
chiefly under the Committee of Commerce, fitted out fleets, and
were vested with important naval duties. At one and the same time
three committees of Congress, the Marine Committee, the Committee
of Foreign Affairs, and the Committee of Commerce, were fitting out
armed vessels.
FOOTNOTES:
[185] Journals of Continental Congress, April 17, 1776.
[186] Ibid., March 29, 1777.
[187] Rhode Island Colonial Records, VIII, 53.
[188] Journals of Continental Congress, July 11, 1780.
[189] Ibid., August 5, 1776.
[190] In July, 1778, when a joint American and French attack on
Newport was planned, the Navy Board at Boston inserted a notice
in the Providence Gazette, requiring sailors who were enlisted to
repair to their vessels, and calling for recruits. This call was in
the following language: “All seamen now in America, who regard the
Liberty of Mankind, or the Honor of the United States of America, as
well as their own advantage, are now earnestly entreated to enter
immediately on board some of the Continental Vessels, in order
to afford all possible Aid and Assistance to His Most Christian
Majesty’s Fleet, under the Command of the Count de Estaing, the
Vice-Admiral of France, now in the American Seas, for the Purpose
of assisting these American States in vanquishing a haughty and
cruel Enemy, too long triumphant on these Seas. Now is the Time to
secure to yourselves Safety in your future Voyages, and to avoid
the cruelties which all those experience who have the Misfortune
to be captured by the Britons; and now is the time to make your
Fortunes.”—Providence Gazette, July 25, 1778. See also advertisement
in Connecticut Gazette, March 7, 1777.
[191] A facsimile of a most interesting and rare broadside will be
found in C. K. Bolton’s Private Soldier under Washington, page 46.
This broadside was designed to attract recruits to the ship “Ranger,”
Captain John Paul Jones, fitting out in the summer of 1777 at
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to sail for France.
[192] Collections of New York Historical Society, Deane Papers, V,
466.
[193] For additional information and appropriate references
concerning privateers, see Part II, State Navies.
[194] There is much evidence on this point. See especially
Publications of Rhode Island Historical Society, VIII, 256, William
Vernon, Commissioner of Navy Board at Boston, to John Adams, December
17, 1778; Force, American Archives, 5th, II, 1105, John Paul Jones to
Robert Morris, October 17, 1776; Ibid., 599, Mrs. John Adams to John
Adams, September 29, 1776; Ibid., 337 and 622; Ibid., 5th, III, 1513,
Benjamin Rush to R. H. Lee, December 21, 1776; and C. K. Bolton,
Private Soldier under Washington, 45, 46.
[195] In the case of Continental prizes the Navy Board at Boston
discovered collusions which were detrimental to the government.
Ordered to buy the Continental prize “Thorn,” it writes to the
Marine Committee that the agents and captains interested in the
prize refuse to let it have the “Thorn” at a price to be fixed by
three disinterested appraisers; and that “taking our chance, in the
purchase by auction, amongst such circles of men in combinations is a
miserable one.” In the same letter the Board writes also concerning
the “Thorn” that “bets run high that she will sell for two hundred
thousand pounds.”—Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 37, pp.
145, 147.
[196] See Chapter IX, page 267; also Gomer Williams, Liverpool
Privateers, Chapter IV, Privateers of the American War of
Independence. From August, 1778, to April, 1779, Liverpool fitted out
one hundred and twenty privateers.
[197] See Part II, State Navies.
[198] Journals of Continental Congress, March 23, 1776.
[199] Papers of Silas Deane in the Library of the Connecticut
Historical Society.
[200] Clowes, Royal Navy, III, 328.
[201] Few of these vessels were ready for sea for lack of crews. The
British also suffered greatly during the Revolution owing to the
scarcity of seamen. This the First Lord of the Admiralty attributed
to the loss of 18,000 American sailors, who had contributed to the
manning of the British fleets in former wars.—Annual Register, 1778,
201.
[202] Boston Gazette, November 4, 1776.
[203] A battleship building in 1903 at the New York navy yard has a
displacement of 16,000 tons.
[204] Manuscript list, in Division of Manuscripts, Library of
Congress.
[205] Clowes, Royal Navy, III, 327.
CHAPTER VI
MOVEMENTS OF THE CONTINENTAL FLEET UNDER THE MARINE COMMITTEE
Many duties fell to the Marine Committee and its fleet which were not
of a purely military character. The Committee was obliged to employ
some of its vessels in keeping open the commercial and diplomatic
communications of the United States with Europe and the West Indies;
upon this intercourse with foreign countries largely depended the
successful issue of the war. The Committee detailed vessels to carry
abroad ambassadors, and foreign agents; letters and dispatches;
tobacco, fish, flour, indigo, and such other colonial products as
exchanged well for naval stores, clothing, and the munitions of war.
Among the distinguished men who took passage on board the Continental
vessels were John Adams, Lafayette, and Gerard, the first French
minister to the United States. In this work it coöperated with other
committees of Congress, and most especially with the Committee of
Secret Correspondence, or its successor, the Committee of Foreign
Affairs; and with the Secret Committee, or, as it was later called,
the Committee of Commerce. Owing to the close connection of the work
of the Marine Committee and the Committee of Commerce in exporting
colonial products and in importing supplies, their accounts became
inextricably confused. While running errands for the various
administrative organs of Congress, the Marine Committee often at the
same time ran errands of its own. A commander who had been selected
to carry abroad a minister or foreign agent, might be ordered to
pick up any prizes which fell in his way, or to cruise for a brief
period in European waters while waiting for letters and packets
from Paris addressed to Congress; or if on the other hand, it was a
voyage in which dispatch was of the highest importance, he would be
specifically forbidden to do these very things.
Turning now to the strictly military work of the Committee, one
finds that clearness in presentation will be obtained by making
a classification of naval operations. These will be divided into
primary and secondary operations. A primary operation will be defined
as one directed against the enemy’s naval vessels at sea. Any other
naval operation whatsoever will be called a secondary one. Primary
operations will be divided into major and minor operations. In major
primary operations fleets of considerable size and force are matched
against each other, as was the case at the battles of Santiago,
Trafalgar, and Martinique. Minor primary operations are engagements
between some two or three of the smaller vessels of the combatants.
A good example of these is the fight between the “Bon Homme Richard”
and the “Serapis.” Secondary operations are of several forms, chief
of which is “commerce-destroying.” Continental vessels during a
single cruise sometimes engaged in both primary and secondary
operations.
In the light of the comparison which has been made showing the
relative strength of the Continental and British navies, the reader
does not need to be told that the Marine Committee did not engage
its fleet in major primary operations. The very existence of the
Continental vessels depended upon their success in keeping outside
the range of the larger guns of the Royal Navy. The Marine Committee
sometimes gave specific orders to its captains to avoid the British
“two-deckers.” In the minor primary operations of the Revolution
some thirty or thirty-five engagements may be counted. The honors
here are upon the whole evenly divided. The Americans captured ten
or twelve naval vessels of the enemy. With the exceptions of the
frigate “Fox,” 26, captured by Captain John Manly between New
England and Newfoundland; and the sloop “Drake,” 20, and the ships
“Countess of Scarborough,” 20, and “Serapis,” 44, captured by Captain
John Paul Jones in European waters, the prizes of the Americans were
minor naval craft, averaging ten or twelve 4’s and 6’s. The British
captured or destroyed about the same number of vessels as they lost,
but their prizes on the average were larger and better armed vessels
than were those of the Americans. Seven of them were frigates. On the
other hand the British had no victory as brilliant as that of Jones
off Flamborough Head.
The secondary operations of the Continental navy were more important
than its primary operations. They mainly involved the protection
of American commerce, the defence of certain Atlantic ports, the
striking of the lines of communication of the British military
forces, the attacking of the enemy’s commerce at sea, and the
threatening and assailing of her unprotected coasts and ports both
at home and in her outlying dependencies. Each of these forms of
secondary operations will now be briefly considered.
The Committee defended American commerce by ordering its cruisers
to “attack, take, burn, or destroy” the enemy’s privateers. One
illustration of such orders will suffice. In November, 1778, the
Committee wrote to the Navy Board at Boston that “at present we
consider it an Object of importance to destroy the infamous Goodrich
who has much infested our Coast, cruising with a squadron of 4, 5,
or 6 armed Vessels, from 16 guns downwards, from Egg Harbour to Cape
Fear in North Carolina.”[206] In its orders the Committee as a rule
included the small naval ships of the enemy with the privateers. Of
the three naval captains who lost their lives in the Continental
service, two of them were killed in engagements with privateers.
On March 4, 1778, the brigantine “Resistance,” Captain Samuel
Chew, while cruising in the West India seas had a desperate and
indecisive encounter with a letter of marque of 20 guns. Chew and
his lieutenant, George Champlin, both of New London, were killed;
Chew was a native of Virginia.[207] Late in the summer of 1778 the
“General Gates,” 18, Captain John Skimmer, captured the brigantine
“Montague” in an engagement in which Captain Skimmer lost his
life.[208]
In addition to defending the American commerce by cruising against
the privateers and small naval ships of the enemy, the Continental
vessels often threw their protecting arm directly around the trade
of the states. Vessels were often detailed to convoy to sea American
merchantmen and packets. At times when the trade was bound for
France, the Continental vessels accompanied it even as far as the
Grand Banks of Newfoundland, but as a rule their services did not
extend beyond a few leagues from the American coast. Sometimes the
Continental vessels were ordered to cruise off the Delaware Bay, or
similar channel, to guide and protect incoming shipping.
The Marine Committee coöperated with the army in the defence and in
the attack of certain ports. In the campaigns around Philadelphia
in 1777 and 1778 the Continental navy lost some ten vessels,
including three of the thirteen original frigates; and at the siege
of Charleston in 1780 it lost four vessels. The British occupation
of New York caused the destruction of the two frigates built at
Poughkeepsie. In 1779 a Continental vessel aided a Spanish expedition
in capturing Mobile. Several times the Committee placed part of its
fleet under the control of Washington and the Admiral of the French
naval forces, when they were planning an attack upon some seaport
held by the enemy.
In 1779 Gerard, the French minister, devised a plan which
contemplated a joint expedition of the French and American fleets
against the British colonies to the northward. Gerard’s purpose
was “to give the King of France Halifax and Newfoundland.” In May,
1779, he consulted with Washington in his camp about the proposed
expedition. By September Gerard’s plan, or a similar one, had so far
matured that the Marine Committee ordered the Navy Board at Boston
to prepare the Continental vessels for a three months’ cruise and
to hold them ready to sail at a moment’s warning to join the French
fleet, or to proceed to such other place as Washington or Count
D’Estaing might direct. The Board was to provide a sufficient number
of pilots for Newfoundland, Halifax, Rhode Island, and the Penobscot
river. This expedition was not abandoned until November, 1779.[209]
The Committee struck at the enemy’s lines of communication between
his army and navy in America, and the British Isles, Canada, the
Bermudas, Florida, and the West Indies. After the transfer of the
war to the Southern states in 1778 and 1779, transports running
between New York and Savannah and Charleston were vulnerable craft.
The capture of British transports laden with munitions of war,
provisions, and troops had the advantage of obtaining for the
Americans the very sinews of war, of which the enemy were deprived.
When troops were captured, they could be exchanged for an equal
number of American prisoners. The reader may recall that it was for
the purpose of intercepting British transports that Congress fitted
out the first Continental vessels in October, 1775.
The most successful capture of the enemy’s transports was made in
the spring of 1779. In order to protect the trade of the Southern
states, depredations upon which were most frequent and destructive,
the Marine Committee in February of that year, ordered the Navy
Board at Boston to send certain of the Continental vessels to sweep
the coast from Cape May to the bar of South Carolina. This detail
of the armed vessels was made partly to satisfy the merchants of
Baltimore, who had complained to Congress that their interests were
being neglected. On March 13 a fleet consisting of the “Warren,”
32, Captain J. B. Hopkins, as commodore, the “Queen of France,” 28,
Captain Joseph Olney, and the “Ranger,” 18, Captain Thomas Simpson,
sailed from Boston, for the coast of the Southern states. On April 7
they captured the privateer schooner, “Hibernia.” This vessel told
them of the sailing of a fleet of transports from New York, bound for
Brigadier-General Campbell’s army in Georgia, and laden with stores
and supplies. The next day fifteen leagues off Cape Henry, Hopkins
fell in with the fleet; and meeting with a trifling resistance, he
made prizes of seven out of its nine vessels. These prizes were all
sent to New England. On April 22, the “Queen of France” arrived in
Boston with the ship “Maria,” 16, carrying eighty-four men, the
schooner “Hibernia,” 8, also carrying eighty-four men, and the brigs
“John,” 200 tons, “Batchelor,” 120 tons, and “Prince Frederick,” 160
tons. Another prize, His Majesty’s ship “Jason,” 16, with one hundred
men, also reached Boston. The “Ranger” put into Portsmouth with the
schooner “Chance” and a brig. The Marine Committee wrote to Captain
Hopkins congratulating him and his fellow captains on the fortunate
outcome of their cruise.[210]
The most important objective of the Marine Committee in its naval
operations was the capture of England’s commerce in transit at sea.
The Committee planned to intercept her sugar ships of the West
Indies, her Newfoundland fishing craft, her Hudson bay fleet laden
with skins and peltries, her Guineamen with cargoes of ivory and
slaves, and her Mississippi trade with its lumber and furs. The
Committee’s agents and the naval officers abroad hoped to ensnare
the enemy’s Baltic trade, the Irish linen ships, the Brazil whaling
fleet, and homeward bound East Indiamen. The sending of frigates
to the Coromandel Coast to intercept the enemy’s China ships and
the trade of India was seriously considered. On one occasion the
Committee designed to attack English vessels bound for Canada with
cargoes of “Indian goods.” But generally the blows were aimed at
the fleets of rich merchantmen returning to England, for their many
vessels were like honey-laden bees flying homeward to their hives.
The British fishing fleet on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and the
homeward bound West Indiamen were found most vulnerable. It is not
practicable for a combatant to prey upon commerce far from his base
of operations. The frequent manning of prizes depletes his crews and
compels him to make an early return home. The chance of prizes being
retaken is increased with the distance they must travel to reach safe
ports. The operations of the Continental vessels in European waters
were made possible by their use of French ports as naval stations. In
attacking England’s commerce the Marine Committee found most promise
of substantial reward by directing its vessels to cruise during the
summer or the early fall some leagues to the eastward of the Bermudas
in the track of the homeward bound West Indiamen, laden with rum,
sugar, cotton, coffee, and other Colonial products. These fleets
sometimes consisted of as many as 200 merchantmen under the convoy of
a few ships of war. Skilful seamanship found it comparatively easy
to cut out a few sail. In three instances Continental vessels made
captures which netted them more than one million dollars each.
Two of these fortunate cruises were made while the fleet was
under the direction of the Marine Committee. On May 4, 1779, the
Committee wrote to the Navy Board at Boston that it desired that
the “Confederacy,” “Warren,” “Queen of France,” “Hanger,” “Jason,”
“Hibernia,” and two of the lately built packets as tenders, and the
“Deane,” which it should send from Philadelphia, should be joined
together and sail in company to the southward and attack the sea
force of the enemy on the coast of Georgia. After routing the enemy
there, the fleet was to throw itself in the way of the West India
ships, bound to England. A fortnight later the Committee wrote that
it had reason to lay aside the expedition to Georgia, and that it was
their intention to place the collected naval force in such manner
as to accomplish the double purpose of intercepting the enemy’s
transports, coming to and going from New York, and of attacking her
homeward bound West India ships.
In accordance with the latter plan of the Committee, sometime
during the summer a fleet was sent to sea from Boston, consisting
of the “Providence”, 28, Captain Abraham Whipple, commodore of the
fleet, the “Queen of France,” 28, Captain John P. Rathburn, and the
“Ranger,” 18, Captain Thomas Simpson. In August the American vessels
fell in with the Jamaica fleet, bound for London, and convoyed by a
32-gun frigate and three other armed vessels. The Americans succeeded
in cutting out from the fleet ten large merchantmen, heavily laden
with rum and sugar. Of the ten vessels, seven arrived at Boston and
one at Cape Ann. The names of these eight ships, whose average burden
was 285 tons, were as follows: “Holderness,” “Dawes,” “George,”
“Friendship,” “Blenheim,” “Thetis,” “Fort William,” and “Neptune.”
This was one of the richest captures which the Continental fleet made
during the Revolution. The ships with their cargoes sold for more
than one million dollars.[211] Early in the year the ship “General
Gates” and the sloop “Providence” sent prizes into Boston which sold
for £240,000.[212]
The Marine Committee threatened and attacked the enemy’s coasts
and towns in the British Isles, Canada, and the West Indies. Two
Continental vessels visited the mouth of the Senegal river on the
west coast of Africa. An attack on the shipping of the Bermudas
was ordered to be made, if it was found practicable. Nassau, New
Providence, was twice captured by Continental vessels, and a third
time by a Spanish fleet and a ship of war of the South Carolina navy.
Robert Morris, when vice-president of the Marine Committee, planned
to send a fleet of five vessels against the British possessions in
the West Indies and the Floridas. The movements of Captains Wickes,
Conyngham, and Jones in attacking and alarming the British Isles are
well known.[213] Those expeditions against British coasts, towns,
and dependencies had several objects in view. One, of course, was the
capture of booty. To the extent that the expeditions were directed
against the shipping and commerce of the attacked ports, their
object was similar to that of fleets which cruised against shipping
and commerce at sea. Another object is discovered in the thought of
Morris when he planned to attack England in the West Indies. Such
a move Morris believed would force the enemy to withdraw part of
his fleet from the coasts of the United States for the defence of
his attacked colonies; and to the extent that he did so, the states
would be relieved. The cruises made in the waters around the British
Isles had in view the lessening of the prestige of Great Britain,
the shaking of her credit, the alarming of her inhabitants, and the
raising of her marine insurance; and also the impressing of Europe
with the power and courage of the new American nation, and perchance,
creating a diversion in its favor. Both a psychological and a
political element entered into the purpose of the cruises in British
waters. They realized to both Britain and the Continent the existence
of a new flag and a new state in the family of nations.
The naval plan devised by Morris, as vice-president of the Marine
Committee, deserves additional notice. It was to be put into
operation by John Paul Jones, with a fleet composed of the “Alfred,”
“Columbus,” “Cabot,” “Hampden,” and sloop “Providence.” Jones was
first to proceed to St. Christopher in the West Indies, which island
was almost defenceless, capture the cannon, stores, and merchandise
there deposited, and then sail for Pensacola, Florida. Morris thought
Jones might find it best to pass along the south side of Hispaniola,
and alarm Jamaica by putting in to some of its ports. Arriving at
Pensacola, he would find it defended by two or three sloops of war,
which could be easily silenced, and the town would fall into his
hands with its munitions of war, including one hundred pieces of
artillery. Having reduced Pensacola, Jones was to send a brigantine
and sloop to cruise at the mouth of the Mississippi, in order to
waylay the British merchantmen leaving there in March and April with
cargoes of indigo, rice, tobacco, skins, and furs, to the value
of £100,000 sterling. Returning from the Gulf, he might alarm St.
Augustine, and finally he might refit in Georgia, or South or North
Carolina. He was directed to carry as many marines as possible for
his operations on shore.
Morris’s object in this expedition involved a nice bit of naval
policy. He purposed not so much the taking of booty, as the alarming
of the whole British nation, and the forcing of the enemy to
withdraw some of her naval forces from the coast of the United
States. “It has long been clear to me,” he said, “that our infant
fleet cannot protect our coasts; and the only effectual relief it
can afford us, is to attack the enemy’s defenceless places, and
thereby oblige them to station more of their own ships in their own
countries, or to keep them employed in following ours, and either
way we are relieved so far as they do it.” Morris proposed his plan
as a substitute for one of Jones, which contemplated a descent on
the west coast of Africa; and to the carrying out of which the
Marine Committee had given its consent. Morris thought that the same
results as Jones sought could be obtained with less risk by “cruizing
Windward of Barbadoes as all their Guinea Men fall in there.”[214]
The Marine Committee naturally planned and carried out naval
enterprises which had in view two or more forms of secondary
operations. Sometimes it ordered its vessels to take stations at
sea where they would be in position to intercept both the West
India trade, and the enemy’s transports plying between New York and
England. Often it left the specific object of a cruise to the Navy
Board at Boston, or to the commander of a ship, and issued merely
the general order to proceed to sea and cruise against the enemy. Any
plan of the Committee which was directed towards meeting an immediate
emergency was rarely carried out. The movements of the vessels were
rendered uncertain by reason of depleted crews, deficient equipments,
and the position of the British fleets. The Committee was often
in the dark as to the exact state of a vessel in New England with
reference to its preparation for sea. Consequently it made many plans
and gave many orders which could not be put into operation. The
telegraph, cable, and rapid postal services have revolutionized the
direction of naval movements.
In prize-getting the Marine Committee’s most successful years were
1776 and 1779. Beginning with 1776 the number of prizes taken by the
Continental vessels for each year of the Committee’s incumbency was,
respectively, sixty, twenty, twenty, and fifty. The fifty prizes
captured in 1779 were probably more valuable than the one hundred
taken in the other three years. As regards the number of Continental
vessels lost, the years 1776 and 1779, when the fleet was decreased
by but three ships, again prove to be the most fortunate years. In
1777 and 1778 twenty-six vessels, ten of which were frigates, were
lost.[215] With the memory of the misfortunes of the past two years
in mind, well might the Marine Committee write, towards the end of
1778, of “the bad success that hath hitherto attended our Navy.” In
May, 1778, it wrote to the Navy Board at Boston, that the “Committee
are entirely of Opinion with you that it will be proper to send out
a Collected force to Cruise against our enemies that we recover the
injured reputation of our Navy and the losses we have sustained.”[216]
In 1779 the navy retrieved the bad effects of some of its disasters.
Its changed fortunes can in part be easily accounted for. The
transference of the scene of war to the Southern states late in
1778, removed a part of the British land and sea forces from the
North, and thereby gave the Naval Department a freer hand in its
operations, and rendered the movements of the fleet less perilous.
The Department this year had larger success in manning and equipping
its fleet. It was, therefore, able not only to send the armed vessels
to sea more frequently, but also to send several of them cruising
in company. Such little fleets had a decided advantage over single
cruisers, both in defensive and offensive operations. No doubt, too,
the experiences and past failures of the navy were now telling in
a better understanding of naval tactics, and were bringing about
a proper subordination and concert of action between officers and
men. Possibly, something should be attributed to the Department’s
increased experience in marine affairs.
The reader has probably already drawn parallels, far from fanciful,
between the solutions of the naval problems of the Revolution
made by the Marine Committee and those of the Spanish-American
war made by the Naval Board of Strategy at Washington. The naval
problems presented to the two bodies were in certain respects widely
different. Equally striking similarities appear. In both wars the
United States was fighting a European power with possessions in
the West Indies and in the Asiatic seas. The attacks on Nassau
and Morris’s proposed expedition against the British West Indies
correspond to the movements of the American fleet in the West Indies
during the late war. The operations of Wickes, Conyngham, and Jones
off the coasts of the British Isles are matched by the proposed
descent on the Spanish coast in 1898. The plan made in 1777 to send
a fleet of frigates to Mauritius and from thence to operate against
the English trade in the Indian seas looks singularly like Admiral
Dewey’s movement from Hong Kong against Manila.
The hope is to be cherished that America will never again cross
swords with her kin beyond seas, but if moved by some untoward
fate she should, it is not too much to say that a Naval Board of
Strategy at Washington will devise plans of naval attack and defence
quite similar to those of the Marine Committee. The weak spots
in a nation’s armor often prove to be its outlying dependencies,
especially when they are situated near the enemy’s coast. The
principles of naval strategy which led the Marine Committee either
to attack, or to plan to attack, Canada, the Newfoundland fisheries,
the Bermudas, and the British West Indies, are still operative,
notwithstanding the vast changes which the past century and a
quarter have witnessed in the methods of naval warfare, and in
the distribution of the territory of the Western Hemisphere among
nations, new as well as old. In a world of change the fundamental
principles of naval strategy remain immutable.
FOOTNOTES:
[206] Marine Committee Letter Book, Committee to Navy Board at
Boston, November 16, 1778.
[207] F. M. Caulkins, History of New London, 539-40; Records and
Papers of New London Historical Society, Part IV, I, 9.
[208] Journals of Continental Congress, September 14, 1778.
[209] Bancroft, History of United States, V, 319; Marine Committee
Letter Book, Committee to Navy Board at Boston, September 28,
November 10, 1779.
[210] Marine Committee Letter Book, Committee to Captain Olney, to
Captain Harding, and to Navy Board at Boston, February 10, 1779;
Committee to Merchants of Baltimore, February 23, 1779; Boston
Gazette, April 26, 1779; Publications of Rhode Island Historical
Society, VIII, 259.
[211] Marine Committee Letter Book, Committee to Navy Board at
Boston, May 4, May 20, 1779; Continental Journal and Weekly
Advertiser, August 26, 1779; Boston Gazette, September 20, 1779.
“Last Saturday noon this town was alarmed by the Appearance of
Seven Topsail Vessels in the Offing, which, however, soon subsided,
for between the Hours of Three and Five in the Afternoon were safe
anchored in this Harbour the Continental Ships of War, ‘Providence,’
‘Queen of France’ and ‘Ranger,’ with Four Prize Ships laden with Rum
and Sugar, being part of a Jamaica Fleet bound to London captured by
the above Vessels.”—Continental Journal and Weekly Advertiser, August
26, 1779, published at Boston.
[212] Publications of Rhode Island Historical Society, VIII, 259.
[213] See Chapter IX and X, Naval Duties of American Representatives
in Foreign Countries.
[214] Marine Committee Letter Book, Morris to Jones, February, 1,
1777; Morris to Commodore Hopkins, February 5, 1777.
[215] Files of newspapers for the period of the Revolution.
[216] Marine Committee Letter Book, Committee to Navy Board at
Boston, May 8, November 9, 1778.
CHAPTER VII
THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY
It is speaking tritely, although accurately, to say that our present
executive departments at Washington did not spring into perfect being
in 1789 like panoplied Minerva from the head of Jove. Not a little
of the interest and value of a study of the administration of the
Revolution comes from the fact that the administrative practices
and experiences of this period gave rootage to the later and more
perfect executive organs. The development of the Continental Naval
Department, both in the variety and in the character of its forms,
is typical of that of the other administrative departments of the
Revolution. We have already seen how the naval business of the
Continental Congress was first vested in the small Naval Committee;
and how this Committee, early in 1776, was overshadowed and absorbed
by the more numerous and more active Marine Committee. We now come
to the third step in this evolution, the superseding of the Marine
Committee by the Board of Admiralty.
The Marine Committee had proved slow, cumbrous, inexpert, and
irresponsible. The wiser members of Congress had long seen that it
was a prime defect in governmental practice to add to the duties
of a legislative committee, those of an executive office; for it
threw upon the same men too much work of too diverse kinds, and it
removed from the administrative organ its most essential attributes
of permanency, technical skill, and responsibility. In December,
1776, Robert Morris had urged the employment of a corps of executives
chosen outside the membership of Congress, as a requisite to a
proper and orderly management of the business of the Revolutionary
government.[217]
As early as February 26, 1777, William Ellery, a member of the Marine
Committee from Rhode Island, wrote to William Vernon at Providence,
who was soon to become a member of the Navy Board at Boston, that
a proper Board of Admiralty was very much wanted. “The members of
Congress,” he said, “are unacquainted with this Department. As one of
the Marine Committee I sensibly feel my ignorance in this respect.
Under a mortifying Sense of this I wrote to you for Information in
this Matter. Books cannot be had here; and I should have been glad
to have been pointed to proper Authors on this Subject when I should
be in a Place where Books may be had.”[218] Early in 1779 when
Congress was groping in search of a more efficient naval executive,
Ellery again expressed regret at the lack of technical skill in the
management of the navy. He said that the marine affairs would never
be “well conducted so long as the supreme direction of them is in the
hands of Judges, Lawyers, Planters, &c.”[219] Even before Morris and
Ellery had declared for better executives, John Paul Jones, while
distressed by a loss in naval rank caused by the appointing and
the placing above him of certain “political skippers,” wrote that
efficient naval officers could never be obtained, until Congress “in
their wisdom see proper to appoint a Board of Admiralty competent to
determine impartially the respective merits and abilities of their
officers, and to superintend, regulate, and point out all the motions
and operations of the navy.”[220]
During 1778 and 1779 Congress hit upon a system of executive
departments that did little violence to its lust for power, and
at the same time secured a permanent body of administrators and
advisors. This was the system of executive boards, composed jointly
of commissioners selected outside the membership of Congress, and
of members of Congress. Congress and the Marine Committee probably
derived a part of their knowledge of executive boards from the
practice of the English government and of the states. “Board of
Admiralty” was the name during the Revolution, as now, of the British
Naval Office. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina had early in
the Revolution established “Navy Boards.” In October, 1777, Congress
had formed a Board of War composed of five commissioners. In October,
1778, Congress attempted to clip the wings of this Board and bring it
under Congressional control by substituting two members of Congress
for two of its five commissioners.[221] On July 30, 1779, a Board
of Treasury was constituted on exactly this plan, being composed of
three commissioners and two members of Congress.[222]
In the spring of 1779 the feeling was general that some change must
be made in the management of the navy. Both 1777 and 1778 had been
lean, empty, and disastrous years for the Continental fleet. The
blame for this failure was placed upon the Marine Committee and the
naval commanders. It was in April, 1779, that Washington wrote to
John Jay asking questions and making suggestions about the management
of the navy, which may be briefly summarized as follows: What are the
reasons for keeping the Continental vessels in port? Had not Congress
better lend them to “commanders of known bravery and capacity” for
a limited term? If additional encouragement is necessary in order
to induce seamen to enlist, why not give them the whole of their
captures? Great advantage might result from placing the whole
fleet under “a man of ability and authority commissioned to act as
commodore or admiral.” Under the present system the Continental ships
are not only very expensive and totally useless, but sometimes they
require a land force to protect them.[223]
This arraignment of the navy is somewhat severe. The last clause in
the above paragraph refers to an incident which took place at New
London in the spring of 1776. The reader may recall that Commodore
Hopkins put into this port on his return from New Providence and
just after his unfortunate engagement with the “Glasgow.” He then
received a temporary loan from Washington of one hundred and seventy
troops, with whom, for the time being, he replenished his depleted
crews. He kept the troops less than six weeks.
In his reply to Washington’s letter, Jay ascribed the naval
inefficiency to a defective Naval Department. He said: “While the
maritime affairs of the continent continue under the direction of a
committee, they will be exposed to all of the consequences of want
of system, attention, and knowledge. The marine committee consists
of a delegate from each state; it fluctuates, new members constantly
coming and old ones going out; three or four, indeed, have remained
in it from the beginning; and few members understand even the state
of our naval affairs, or have time or inclination to attend to them.
But why is not this system changed? It is in my opinion, inconvenient
to the family compact.”[224] The “family compact” is supposed to
refer to the Lees. During the Revolution the Lees and the Adamses
formed the nucleus of a faction, which was generally opposed to
constructive legislation in the field of administration.
When this letter of Jay’s was written a new naval system was
forming.[225] On June 9 Congress resolved to vest in “commissioners
all business relating to the marine of these United States.”[226]
Apparently this resolution of Congress meant that the naval affairs
were to be given over to a board chosen outside the membership of
Congress; if so, Congress soon retracted it. On October 1, 1779,
Congress discharged the committee that had had the new project in
hand, and directed the Marine Committee “to prepare and report a
plan of regulations for conducting the naval affairs of the United
States.”[227] The Marine Committee reported on October 28, 1779;
thereupon, Congress passed resolutions making provision for a Board
of Admiralty, “to be subject in all cases to Congress.” These
resolutions were in important respects based upon those of October
17 and November 24, 1777, establishing a Board of War.[228] This was
natural, as the work of a war and a naval office are quite similar.
In the composition of the two boards there was a vital difference.
The Board of War, as has been said, consisted of five commissioners;
the Board of Admiralty consisted of three commissioners and two
members of Congress, being modeled after the Board of Treasury. Any
three members of the Board of Admiralty were empowered to form a
quorum. No two members were permitted to come from the same state.
The Board must have its office in the same town in which Congress was
sitting. It selected its clerks, but Congress chose its secretary.
The powers and duties of the Board of Admiralty were practically
The same as those of the Marine Committee. The Board was to order
and direct the movements of all ships and vessels of war. It was to
superintend and direct the navy boards and see that they kept fair
entries and proper accounts of all the business transacted by them.
It was to keep a complete and accurate register of the officers of
the navy, giving their rank and the date of their commissions; these
were to be signed by the President of Congress and countersigned
by the secretary of the Board. The Board was to have the care and
direction of the marine prisoners. It was to obtain regular and
exact returns of all warlike stores, clothing, provisions, and
miscellaneous articles belonging to the marine department. Lastly
the Board of Admiralty was to “execute all such matters as shall be
directed, and give their opinion on all such subjects as shall be
referred to them by Congress, or as they may think necessary for the
better regulation and improvement of the navy of the United States;
and in general to superintend and direct all the branches of the
marine department.”[229]
The officers of the navy were enjoined to obey the directions of the
Board of Admiralty. The proceedings, records, and papers of the Board
were to be open at all times to the inspection of the members of
Congress. The Board of Admiralty was ordered to examine at once the
unsettled accounts of the navy boards and naval agents, and report
thereon to Congress. It was further directed to form proper plans for
increasing the naval force of the United States and for the better
regulating of the same.
The salary of each commissioner was fixed at $14,000, and that of the
secretary of the Board at $8,000 a year. On September 13, 1780, these
salaries were decreased to $1,850 and to $1,100 a year, respectively,
to be now paid quarterly in specie or its equivalent.[230] When
Congress increased the salary of its Commissioners of the Treasury
from $1,850 to $2,000, the Commissioners of Admiralty, exhibiting
that delicate sense of the fitness of more pay which characterizes
the employees of governments, petitioned for a similar increase in
their salaries;[231] and Congress, in accord with its subsequent
character under the Constitution, refused a favor to the navy which
it granted to a more popular branch of its public service.[232] The
Congressional members received no pay for their services on the Board.
When Congress came to select Commissioners of Admiralty, it found
no easy task. Men who were eager for distinction and honor felt
that they were cultivating a surer field in their home governments
or in the army. The prestige of the Continental government was now
declining. The dilution of salaries caused by the depreciation of
the currency lessened the attractiveness of the Continental offices.
Employees of Congress found it hard to support their families on
their pay. Then too, the navy business had become a thankless and
disheartening task. The class of men who will accept a disagreeable
office with little pay and no glory is a small one at any time.
The first three commissioners elected by Congress were William
Whipple of New Hampshire, chairman of the Marine Committee, Thomas
Waring of South Carolina, and George Bryan of Pennsylvania. Each
declined. On December 7 Francis Lewis of New York was chosen
commissioner, and on the next day he accepted the office. Congress on
the 3rd had named the two Congressional members of the Board, William
Floyd of New York, and James Forbes of Maryland. The appointment of
Lewis vacated the position of Floyd, as two members from the same
state could not serve on the Board. William Ellery of Rhode Island
was now elected as the second Congressional member. Congress had
already chosen John Brown, the secretary of the Marine Committee, to
be secretary of the Board of Admiralty. Lewis, Forbes, and Ellery
were sufficient to organize the Board. Accordingly on December 8,
1779, Congress resolved “that all matters heretofore referred to the
marine committee be transmitted to the board of admiralty.”[233]
On December 10 the Board of Admiralty wrote to the Navy Board at
Boston, informing it of the dissolution of the Marine Committee, and
directing it to address in the future all letters and applications
relating to the navy to the “Commissioners of the Admiralty of the
United States.”[234]
Upon the organization of the Board of Admiralty, its difficulties in
obtaining quorums began; and the troubles of Congress in its search
for additional commissioners continued. On January 22, 1780, Congress
gave Brigadier-General Thomas Mifflin of Pennsylvania an opportunity
to decline a commissionership.[235] On March 21 Lewis was complaining
to Congress that Forbes was sick, and that consequently there had
been no Board since the 4th instant. He hoped Congress would fill
up the vacancy and prevent the navy business from being longer
suspended.[236] On the death of Forbes on March 25, Congress elected
James Madison to fill his place. Madison had but recently arrived at
Philadelphia as a delegate from Virginia.
In June, 1780, Lewis was again in trouble and was writing to
Congress. He conceived that the addition of members of Congress
to the Board of Admiralty was principally intended to lay such
information before Congress from time to time as the Board desired
to give, to explain its reports, and in the absence, or during
the sickness, of a commissioner to make a quorum. He said that,
notwithstanding the attention which Madison and Ellery had been
disposed to give, their necessary attendance on Congress did not
admit of their being daily and constantly present at the sessions of
the Board; that Ellery had been superseded in Congress; and that at
present there was no Board for lack of a quorum.[237] Congress once
more came to the rescue of Lewis and his Board by appointing Ellery
and Thomas Woodford as commissioners.[238] Ellery at once accepted,
but Woodford for some reason declined the appointment. Congress
never obtained a third commissioner. In the fall of 1780 Daniel
Huntington of Connecticut and Whitmill Hill of North Carolina were
the Congressional members of the Board. On their being supplanted in
November, 1780, by new delegates to Congress from their respective
states, it took the urgent solicitation of Lewis to get Congress to
fill the vacancies.[239] When the Board was discontinued in July,
1781, it had but one Congressional member, Daniel of St. Thomas
Jenifer of Maryland.
To all intents and purposes Lewis and Ellery were the Board of
Admiralty; and in many respects they were well qualified for their
positions. Both were able men, though not brilliant. Both had
passed the meridian of life; Lewis was in his sixty-seventh year,
and Ellery in his fifty-second. Both had taken prominent parts in
the Revolutionary counsels in their respective states; both had been
members of the Continental Congress and of the Marine Committee. Both
were among the immortal Signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Lewis had amassed a fortune as an importing merchant in New York, and
had served in the French and Indian war. Ellery had been a merchant,
and later a lawyer in Newport, Rhode Island. Both men were interested
in naval affairs, and had rendered good service on the Marine
Committee. Lewis’s work on the Board of Admiralty exceeded that of
Ellery.
From the first the Board of Admiralty was more dependent on Congress
than the Marine Committee had been. Congress, always jealous of
its prerogatives, naturally permitted a freer exercise of power to
a committee of its own members, than to a mixed board, whose work
was almost entirely that of commissioners selected outside the
membership of Congress. To the Board’s dependence on Congress for its
organization was added that for means to carry out its naval program.
The frequency with which it went to Congress asking for quorums and
money indicates its helplessness and weakness.
The work of the Board of Admiralty was, generally speaking, that of
the Marine Committee under a change of name. It managed the dwindling
business of the navy from December, 1779, until July, 1781. It was
served by the Navy Boards and naval agents of its predecessor, the
Marine Committee. Immediately after its organization, the Board of
Admiralty, in compliance with the resolutions of Congress, urged the
Navy Boards and naval agents to transmit to it accurate accounts
of their transactions up to December 31, 1779. Owing to the loose
methods of business which obtained during the Revolution, the
agents of the Board found it in most cases impossible to make such
statements.
The failure of the agents properly to report their accounts, together
with a diminution in the naval business of Congress, now led to some
decrease in naval machinery. In August, 1780, the Board recommended
that the two Philadelphia prize agents be discharged, since it had
not been able to induce them by means of its repeated written and
verbal requests to exhibit their accounts. Congress now discontinued
their office and gave their work to the Board of Admiralty.[240] In
the winter of 1780-81 the resignations of Winder and Wharton, as
commissioners of the Navy Board at Philadelphia, were accepted by
Congress, and the duties of this Board were vested in its remaining
member, James Read.[241] On May 7, 1781, Congress accepted the
resignation of Deshon of the Navy Board at Boston.[242] The work of
the Navy Boards and naval agents had now greatly diminished. Already
the settling of naval accounts was becoming one of their principal
tasks. After 1779 there were few Continental prizes to libel. Upon
the resignation of the naval agents at Philadelphia, those at Boston,
Portsmouth, and New London were the only ones of consequence.
The Board of Admiralty was called to act upon divers letters,
petitions, and memorials, differing little from the similar
communications which Congress referred to the Marine Committee. It
also fell to its lot to prepare and report not a little important
legislation. The reports of the Board, which were in writing, were
chiefly the work of Lewis and Ellery, and were presented to Congress
by the Congressional members of the Board. Congress usually referred
these reports to a committee, before it discussed them or took final
action upon them. Not a few of the reports of the Board were,
however, pigeon-holed by Congress, and no action was taken upon
them. The naval legislation of Congress during the incumbency of the
Board of Admiralty was in part rendered necessary by the decline of
the navy. Certain other legislation was caused by the putting into
effect of the Articles of Confederation on March 1, 1781; and a few
Congressional resolutions on naval affairs may be attributed to the
special legislative activity and enterprise of the Board of Admiralty.
In January, 1780, Congress on the recommendation of the Board of
Admiralty passed a resolution which was no doubt in harmony with
administrative economy and thrift, but which pressed hard upon many
naval officers. The pay of all officers in the navy not in actual
service was at once to cease. Their commissions were to be deposited
with the most convenient Navy Board, until the officers should be
again called into service; each officer was to retain his rank.[243]
This was merely a courteous way of disestablishing the larger part of
the navy. Owing to the capture and destruction of many Continental
vessels, most of the naval officers were not in actual service. The
number of commissioned officers in actual service in both navy and
marine corps at this time was about twenty. It is clear that the
Continental Congress was unfriendly to the theory that an employee of
a government has a vested right in his office.
On July 11, 1780, naval salaries, subsistence money, and bounties
were ordered to be paid in specie; forty Continental dollars were
considered equal to one of specie. On the same day, in order that
the depleted crews might perchance be recruited, Congress voted a
bounty of twenty dollars to able, and ten dollars to ordinary seamen
who should enlist in the navy for twelve months.[244] On August 7 it
provided that officers who had served aboard vessels of twenty guns
or upwards, and who should afterwards be detailed to vessels of less
armament, should suffer no diminution in pay.[245] These provisions
all indicate a declining government and navy.
On February 8, 1780, the Board of Admiralty secured the re-enaction
of the resolutions of May 6, 1778, concerning the holding of courts
of enquiry and courts-martial.[246] The most important provision
of these resolutions, it is recalled, lessened the requirements
for the membership of courts-martial as fixed by Adams’s rules.
On the partial disestablishment of the navy in January it became
increasingly difficult to assemble courts-martial composed
entirely of naval officers. The only naval captain cashiered by a
court-martial held under the direction of the Board of Admiralty was
the eccentric Peter Landais.[247]
On May 4, 1780, the Board of Admiralty reported and Congress adopted
the following device for a seal: “The arms, thirteen bars mutually
supporting each other, alternate red and white, in a blue field,
and surmounted by an anchor proper. The crest a ship under sail.
The motto, sustentans et sustentatus. Legend, U. S. A. Sigil.
Naval.”[248] The anchor and ship under sail are still a part of the
seal of the Department of the Navy. Instead of the arms, motto, and
former legend, there now appear an eagle with outstretched wings, and
the words “Navy Department, United States of America.”
On April 20, 1780, Congress adopted a new form of commission for
naval officers, which the Board of Admiralty had drafted.[249] This
varied little from the one which had been used since the beginning
of the Revolution. With slight changes in phraseology made to adapt
it to the government under the Constitution, it is still used in
the Department of the Navy at Washington. It is this form properly
filled out which constitutes our present Admiral’s title to his rank
and office. The Board also prepared a form of commission, of bond,
and of instructions for commanders of private vessels of war.[250]
In the instructions the rights of neutrals were especially guarded.
Following the lead of “Her Imperial Majesty of all the Russias,”
Congress declared that the goods of belligerents on board neutral
vessels, with the exception of contraband, were not subject to
capture. It confined the term contraband to those articles expressly
declared to be such in the treaty of amity and commerce of February
6, 1778, between the United States and France.[251]
Congress on March 27, 1781, passed an ordinance relative to the
capture and condemnation of prizes. This law was enacted by virtue of
the ninth article of the Articles of Confederation, which vested the
war powers in Congress. It codified the resolutions of November 25,
1775, and March 23, 1776. It was more severe than these resolutions,
and omitted certain indulgences and exemptions, which they contained.
It prescribed the penalty of forfeiture of vessel without trial for
those captors who destroyed or falsified their ship papers. One of
its provisions related to salvage.[252] This law and also the one of
April 7, 1781, fixing the instructions of commanders of private armed
vessels, brought former legislation into conformity with the Articles
of Confederation.
The Board of Admiralty and Congress were inclined to disagree as
to the proper construction to be placed upon the ninth article of
the Articles of Confederation, which gave Congress “the sole and
exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war.” In a
report which it made to Congress under date of May 29, 1781, after
referring to the commissions which Massachusetts had issued to
the “Protector” and “Mars,” two ships of the navy of that state,
it said that “the Board humbly conceives that Commissions issuing
from different Fountains of Power, is a matter which may merit the
attention of the United States in Congress assembled who are the
supreme power in Peace and War.” The Board was inclined to take the
view that Massachusetts had no right to issue these commissions. The
committee of Congress to whom the report was referred interpreted
more narrowly the war powers of Congress than did the Board of
Admiralty. It conceived that each state had the right to issue
commissions to ships of war under the regulations established by
Congress, and that the only step necessary to be taken for the
present was for the Board to transmit to each state a copy of the
present regulations governing the issuing of commissions.[253] This
incident is noteworthy in its indicating the existence of “strict”
and “loose” constructionists within three months after the Articles
of Confederation were adopted.
If another illustration is needed to show the dependence of the
makers of the American navy upon British models, some words of
the Board of Admiralty are in point. For a long time it had under
consideration a revision of the rules and regulations of the
Continental navy. Concerning its intention to inspect the British
rules and incorporate into its new code such of them as were adapted
to the American navy, it observed that it did not “think it unlawful
to be taught by an enemy whose naval skill and power, until the reign
of the present illustrious King of France, were superior to that of
any kingdom or state on earth.”[254] It is believed that the work of
the Board in this particular was not brought before Congress.
On January 15, 1780, Congress created a permanent Court of Appeals
for the trial of prize cases appealed from state admiralty courts.
Since January 30, 1777, such cases had been heard and determined
by a standing committee composed of five members of Congress. Such
a committee naturally lacked permanency, expertness, and technical
and legal knowledge. The Court established in January, 1780, was
to consist of three judges, who were to try, in accordance with
the law of nations, questions of fact as well as law. On January
22, 1780, Congress chose as the three judges of the Court, George
Wythe of Virginia, William Paca of Maryland, and Titus Hosmer of
Connecticut.[255]
When the Board of Admiralty took charge of the navy in December,
1779, there were ten Continental cruisers in American waters. The
“Deane,” 32, was fitting for sea at Boston; the “Trumbull,” 28,
was still in the Connecticut river; the “Providence,” 28, “Boston,”
24, “Queen of France,” 28, and “Ranger,” 18, were on their way to
Charleston, South Carolina, in whose defence they were to assist;
the “Confederacy,” 32, was at Martinique repairing and refitting;
and three vessels were still on the stocks, the “America,” 74, at
Portsmouth, “Bourbon,” 36, at Chatham on the Connecticut river, and
“Saratoga,” 18, at Philadelphia. The “Alliance” was at the Texel
in Holland where she had arrived after playing an ignominious part
in the celebrated fight of Jones off Flamborough Head. This is not
a formidable fleet, and its future movements have little bearing
upon the great naval conflict now being waged between the mistress
of the seas on the one side and France and Spain on the other. The
Continental navy, however, still had some important errands to run,
both Washington and the French were to ask its assistance, and on a
few occasions the enemy was to find its officers and sailors no mean
combatants.
In completing the vessels which were building and in refitting
those which were in commission, the Board of Admiralty was from
the first sorely embarrassed by a lack of money. The difficulties
which the Marine Committee had encountered were now intensified by
the prostration of the country’s finances and credit. The Board
resorted to all means within reason in its attempts to obtain the
requisites for prosecuting its work. In January, 1780, it wrote to
the Board of Treasury that unless money was at once forthcoming the
Naval Department would be at a standstill; and that not less than
one hundred thousand dollars would be sufficient for its needs.[256]
It eagerly sought the proceeds to be derived from the sale of rum,
wine, fruit, and sugar, taken from Continental prizes. In the summer
of 1780 in order that its vessels might be in condition to render
assistance to the expected French fleet, the Board solicited aid
from the governors of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut;
pressed the Commissary-General of Issues of the Continental Army to
furnish it with “62,820 weight of Bread and 13,260 weight of Flour”
with all despatch;[257] and finally, applied to John Holker, the
Consul-General of France at Philadelphia, for a loan of 60,000 pounds
of bread, promising to take special pains to repay it.[258]
Thus hampered, the Board was unable to accomplish much with its
little fleet. During its incumbency some half-dozen cruises were
made by the Continental vessels. Twenty prizes were captured; half of
them only reached safe ports. Two of the prizes were His Majesty’s
brigs “Atalanta,” 16, and “Trepassey,” 14, which were taken by the
“Alliance,” 36, Captain John Barry, in May, 1781, when returning from
France. During the fight, which lasted four hours, the gallant Barry
was wounded in the shoulder. This voyage of Barry, during which he
captured seven prizes, was the most successful one made under the
direction of the Board of Admiralty.
In June, 1780, one of the most hotly contested engagements fought
at sea during the Revolution occurred to the northward of the
Bermudas between the “Trumbull,” 28, Captain James Nicholson, the
ranking officer of the Continental navy, and the Liverpool privateer
“Watt,” 32, Captain Coulthard. After a fight of two hours and a
half both vessels withdrew seriously disabled, and with difficulty
made their ways to their respective ports—the “Trumbull” to Boston
and the “Watt” to New York. A British account of the engagement
places the loss of the “Watt” at eighty-eight men, and that of the
“Trumbull” at “considerable more.” The Americans gave their own loss
as thirty-eight men, and the British as ninety-two. The “Trumbull”
had two lieutenants killed. Gilbert Saltonstall, the captain of
marines onboard the “Trumbull,” wrote a vivid account of the fight.
He was in the thick of it, and received eleven wounds. He said that
“upon the whole there has not been a more close, obstinate, and
bloody engagement since the war. I hope it won’t be treason if I
don’t except even Paul Jones’. All things considered we may dispute
titles with him.”[259] This was the first cruise of the “Trumbull.”
The other twelve frigates of the original thirteen were at this time
either destroyed or captured.
In July, 1780, a futile plan for an attack on New York was made. The
Continental navy and army were to coöperate with the French fleet
under the Admiral the Chevalier de Ternay. Under the direction of the
Board of Admiralty, the Continental vessels continued to make voyages
to France and the West Indies. The losses suffered by the navy during
1780 and the first half of 1781 were considerable. The “Boston,”
“Providence,” “Queen of France,” and “Ranger” were surrendered to the
British on the fall of Charleston in May, 1780. The “Confederacy,”
32, Captain Seth Harding, returning from Cape Francois with a load
of military stores and colonial produce, was, on April 14, 1781,
captured by the British naval ships, “Roebuck,” 44, and “Orpheus,”
32. The “Confederacy” was taken into the British navy under the name
of “Confederate.” In March, 1781, the “Saratoga,” 18, Captain John
Young, foundered at sea and all on board were lost.[260]
Early in 1781 Congress resolved to supersede the Board of Admiralty
with a Secretary of Marine, but failed to find a man who was willing
to accept the new office. In June, 1781, the plan of appointing
an Agent of Marine, and vesting in him the duties of the Board of
Admiralty, pending the selection of a Secretary of Marine, was
brought forward in Congress. The commissioners of admiralty were
able to forecast the results of this agitation for a new naval
system.[261] 2 On July 9, 1781, Ellery informed Congress “that his
family affairs pressed his return home, and therefore requested leave
of absence.”[262] As there was at this time but one Congressional
member serving on the Board, on the absence of Ellery no quorum could
be obtained. Lewis now prayed Congress to permit him to resign, or to
give him such further directions “as they in their wisdom shall deem
meet.”[263] On July 17 Congress accepted his resignation.[264] On
July 18 Congress put the marine prisoners in charge of the Commissary
of Prisoners of the army, and ordered the seal of the admiralty to be
deposited with the Secretary of Congress until a Secretary of Marine
should be appointed.[265] The Revolutionary Naval Department was
without a head.
The Board of Admiralty was not a satisfactory executive. It was at
all times dependent on its Congressional members for quorums. It
proved to be slower, more cumbersome, and less responsible than the
Marine Committee. The management of the navy still lacked unity and
concentration. On the other hand, had the Board not been superseded,
its commissioners would no doubt in time have developed greater
expertness and technical skill than did the members of the Marine
Committee. It should also be said that under more favorable auspices
the Board of Admiralty would have shown a higher administrative
efficiency than it did; for its lines had indeed fallen in unpleasant
places, and a bankrupt federal treasury and a decadent Congress
denied it the means requisite to the successful prosecution of its
work.
FOOTNOTES:
[217] Force’s Archives, 5th, III, 1336, Robert Morris to American
Commissioners at Paris, December 21, 1776. Morris wrote as follows:
“So long as that respectable body persist in the attempt to execute,
as well as to deliberate on their business, it never will be done as
it ought, and this has been urged many and many a time by myself and
others, but some of them do not like to part with power, or to pay
others for doing what they cannot do themselves.”
[218] Publications of Rhode Island Historical Society, VIII, 205,
Papers of William Vernon and Navy Board.
[219] Ibid., 257, Ellery to Vernon, March 23, 1779.
[220] Force’s Archives, 5th, II, 1106, Jones to Morris, October 16,
1776.
[221] Journals of Continental Congress, October 29, 1778.
[222] Ibid., July 30, 1779.
[223] Johnston, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, I,
207-08, Washington to Jay, April, 1779.
[224] Johnston, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, I, 209,
Jay to Washington, April 26, 1779.
[225] Marine Committee Letter Book, Committee to Navy Board at
Boston, April 27, 1779.
[226] Journals of Continental Congress, June 9, 1779.
[227] Ibid., October 1, 1779.
[228] Ibid., October 17, November 24, 1777.
[229] Journals of Continental Congress, October 28, 1779.
[230] Ibid., September 13, 1780.
[231] Force Transcripts, Library of Congress, 37, p. 207, Report
Board of Admiralty, April 12, 1781.
[232] Journals of Continental Congress, July 7, 1781.
[233] Journals of Continental Congress, November 26, December 3, 7,
8, 1779.
[234] Marine Committee Letter Book, Board of Admiralty to Navy Board
at Boston, December 10, 1779.
[235] Journals of Continental Congress, January 22, 1780.
[236] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 78, XIV, 309, Lewis
to President of Congress, March 21, 1780.
[237] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 78, XIV, 337-43,
349, Lewis to President of Congress, June 6, June 12, 1780.
[238] Journals of Continental Congress, June 23, 1780.
[239] Force Transcripts, Library of Congress, 37, pp. 291, 294, Lewis
to President of Congress, November 4, 6, 1780.
[240] Force Transcripts, Library of Congress, 37, p. 125, Board of
Admiralty to President of Congress, August 14, 1780; Journals of
Continental Congress, August 18, 1780.
[241] Journals of Continental Congress, December 5, 1780; January 11,
1781.
[242] Ibid., May 7, 1781.
[243] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 37, pp. 175-77,
Report of Board of Admiralty, January 24, 1780; Journals of
Continental Congress, January 22, January 25, 1780.
[244] Journals of Continental Congress, July 11, 1780; Records and
Papers of Continental Congress, 37, pp. 261-63, Report of Board of
Admiralty, July 10, 1780.
[245] Journals of Continental Congress, August 7, 1780.
[246] Ibid., February 8, 1780.
[247] See Chapter X, pages 298-300.
[248] Journals of Continental Congress, May 4, 1780.
[249] Ibid., April 20, 1780.
[250] Journals of Continental Congress, May 2, November 27, 1780,
April 7, 1781; Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 37, pp.
225-41.
[251] Journals of Continental Congress, October 5, 1780; Wharton’s
Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 860, 867.
[252] Journals of Continental Congress, March 27, 1781.
[253] Force Transcripts, Library of Congress, 37, pp. 241-44. The
Board of Admiralty probably had in mind the sixth as well as the
ninth article of the Articles of Confederation.
[254] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 37, pp. 277, 281,
Reports of Board of Admiralty, July 24, July 26, 1780.
[255] Journals of Continental Congress, January 30, 1777; January
15, January 22, 1780; Jameson, Essays in the Constitutional History
of the United States, Chapter I, Predecessor of the Supreme Court;
Carson, Supreme Court of the United States, Part I, 50-57.
[256] Marine Committee Letter Book, Board of Admiralty to Board of
Treasury, January 7, 1780.
[257] Ibid., Board of Admiralty, to Commissary-General of Issues,
August 21, 1780.
[258] Ibid., Board of Admiralty to Holker, August 29, 1780.
[259] Records and Papers of New London Country Historical Society,
part IV, I, 47-56; Boston Gazette, July 24, 1780; Gomer Williams,
Liverpool Privateers, 272-75.
[260] List of Officers in Revolutionary Navy, miscellaneous
manuscripts in the Library of Congress.
[261] See Chapter VIII, Secretary of Marine and Agent of Marine.
[262] Journals of Continental Congress, July 9, 1781.
[263] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 78, XIV, 445-47.
[264] Journals of Continental Congress, July 17, 1781.
[265] Ibid., July 18, 1781.
CHAPTER VIII
THE SECRETARY OF MARINE AND THE AGENT OF MARINE
On the question of the proper organization of the executive
departments, the leaders of the Revolution were divided into
two factions. Moved by their love of liberty, their distrust of
governments, and their jealousy of delegated and concentrated
powers, the members of one faction favored the vesting of the
executive business in Congressional committees. The members of the
other faction, who stood for governmental authority and control,
for constructive legislation in the field of administration, and
for the application of the principles of business to the affairs
of state, declared for a system of permanent and single-headed
executives chosen outside of the membership of Congress. The issue
that was here joined in the special field of administration was
of course a part of that perennial and perpetual conflict between
the freedom of the individual and social control. In this case, as
everywhere and always, the political doctrinaires, the iconoclasts
and radicals, and the men of heart rather than of head, lined up on
the side of liberty; while the practical and conservative men, the
representatives of vested interests, and the cold, logical thinkers,
stood together on the side of governmental control.
The faction which distrusted power and wished to keep it scattered,
may be called the “dispersive school;” and the faction which wished
to gather up the power and lodge it with a few men, may be called
the “concentrative school.” To the “dispersive school” belonged
Samuel Adams, the Lees, Patrick Henry, and William Whipple; to the
“concentrative school”, Hamilton, Washington, the Morrises, and
Jay. Early in the Revolution the advantage lay with the “dispersive
school.” Its executive plan of Congressional committees needed
little work to put it into operation; it was more flexible than
the scheme of permanent single-headed executives; and it was
more in harmony with the ultra anti-monarchical spirit of the
times. The Revolutionary government, originating as a congress of
delegates, organized itself, after the manner of congresses, by
means of committees of its own members. When the Congress became
a Government, and had entrusted to it a multiplicity of executive
duties, it naturally continued and adapted the old organization
for the transaction of its new business. The executive system of
Congressional committees, in this way becoming fixed, could not be
easily changed.
By 1780 the “concentrative school” was winning its way. Indeed,
the adoption in 1779 of mixed boards composed of men both in
and out of Congress was a compromise between the two schools,
in which the “concentrative school” gave up its contention for
simplicity in the executive organs, in order to secure, in part
at least, another of its objectives, permanency in the tenure of
the administrators. By 1780 both committees and boards had been
tried and found wanting. Then too, there was a greater need for a
change in the executive system, than in the first years of the war.
As Congress became imbecile, the quality of its committees and of
their work deteriorated; and as the country wearied of the war,
and its finances tightened, the necessity for greater economy and
efficiency in administration increased. In 1780 the feeling among
the leaders was general that a crisis in the army, in the finances,
and in the business of the government, which could be met only by
some thorough and far-reaching reform, was approaching. The leaders
of the “concentrative school” proposed a complete change in the
administrative system of Congress as a solution of the serious
problems that confronted the country. By the end of 1780 a movement
for a reform of this sort was in progress. It was diligently
furthered by one school and zealously opposed by the other.
“If Congress,” Washington wrote in December, 1780, “suppose that
Boards composed of their own body, and always fluctuating, are
competent to the great business of war (which requires not only
close application, but a constant and uniform train of thinking
and acting), they will most assuredly deceive themselves. Many,
many instances might be adduced in proof of this.” Washington was
convinced that extravagant and improper expenditures of the public
money, inexpertness in the transacting of business, and needless
delays resulted from vesting all or a part of the duties of an
executive office in Congress.[266] Hamilton declared specifically
for the substitution of single executives for plural ones, and
he named three men whom he considered especially qualified for
departmental posts, General Schuyler for Minister of War, General
McDougall for Minister of Marine, and Robert Morris for Minister
of Finance. He conceived that there were always more knowledge,
energy, responsibility, decision, despatch, zeal, and attraction
for first-rate ability “where single men, than where bodies are
concerned.”[267] Gouverneur Morris contributed to the agitation in
behalf of better executives an enumeration of the qualifications
requisite in the men who were to become heads of the leading
departments. He held, as still do some of the writers on naval
administration, that a Minister of Marine should possess a practical
and technical knowledge of naval affairs; and he presented a unique
list of his qualities in the following words:
“A minister of the marine should be a man of plain good sense, and
a good economist, firm but not harsh; well acquainted with sea
affairs, such as the construction, fitting, and victualling of ships,
the conduct and manœuvre on a cruise, and in action, the nautical
face of the earth, and maritime phenomenon. He should know the
temper, manners, and disposition of sailors; for all which purposes
it is proper, that he should have been bred to that business, and
have followed it, in peace and war, in a military, and commercial
capacity. His principles and manners should be absolutely republican,
and his circumstances not indigent.”[268]
It has been said that the debate in Congress over the change in the
executive system was long, and was marked by the workings of party
spirit, the self-interest of some members, and the doubts and fears
and divided opinions of others.[269] Samuel Adams placed himself at
the head of the advocates of the old system. On January 10, 1781, the
friends of the new system gained their first decisive victory; for
on this day Congress resolved to establish a Department of Foreign
Affairs, and to appoint for its chief officer a Secretary for Foreign
Affairs.[270] Five days later Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee a
letter which is almost pathetic in its earnestness and seriousness.
“My friend,” he said, “we must not suffer anything to discourage us
in this great conflict. Let us recur to first principles without
delay. It is our duty to make every proper exertion in our respective
States to revive the old patriotic feelings among the people at
large, and to get the public departments, especially the most
important of them, filled with men of understanding and inflexible
virtue. Our cause is surely too interesting to mankind to be put
under the direction of men, vain, avaricious, or concealed under the
hypocritical guise of patriotism, without a spark of public virtue.”
Adams recognized that the public service needed reforming. This he
would accomplish, not by a change of the administrative system, but
by the introduction of more competent and more virtuous men into
Congress and into its committees. This latter was to be brought about
by a revival of civic interest in the several states.[1]
On February 7, 1781, Congress “resumed the consideration of the plan
for the arrangement of the civil executive departments.”[271] It this
day resolved that there should be a Superintendant of Finance, a
Secretary of War, and a Secretary of Marine. It summed up the duties
of the Secretary of Marine in the following brief paragraph:
“It shall be the duty of the secretary of marine to examine into
and to report to Congress the present state of the navy, a register
of the officers in and out of command, and the dates of their
respective commissions; and an account of all the naval and other
stores belonging to that department; to form estimates of all pay,
equipments, and supplies necessary for the navy; and from time to
time to report such estimates to the superintendant of finance, that
he may take measures for providing for the expences, in such manner
as may best suit the condition of the public treasury; to superintend
and direct the execution of all resolutions of Congress respecting
naval preparations; to make out, seal, and countersign all marine
commissions, keep registers thereof, and publish annually a list
of all appointments; to report to Congress the officers and agents
necessary to assist him in the business of his department; and in
general to execute all the duties and powers specified in the act of
Congress constituting the board of admiralty.”
Speaking generally, the Secretary of Marine was to succeed to
the duties and powers of the Board of Admiralty. It is, however,
significant that the Secretary was not specifically charged with the
ordering and directing of the movements of the vessels of war, as
was the Board. The specified duties of the new office are largely
secretarial. Congress was disposed to be less liberal in granting
powers to a Secretary chosen outside its membership than to a Board
partly composed of Congressmen. On February 9th the salary of the
Secretary of Marine was fixed at $5000 per annum.[272]
On February 27, 1781, Congress, with a promptness which was
exceptional, elected Major-General Alexander McDougall of New York to
be Secretary of Marine, for which position he had been recommended
by Alexander Hamilton. McDougall’s qualifications for the office
were above the average. In the French and Indian War he had been a
commander of privateers. Later he became a merchant in New York City.
He was a leader of the Revolution in that state, and had risen to the
rank of a major-general in the Revolutionary army. McDougall declined
to accept the position proferred him unless permitted to hold his
rank in the army, and to retain the privilege of returning to the
field when his services were required. He based this partial refusal
on patriotic grounds. Congress did not wish a Secretary of Marine on
these conditions; and it therefore voted that it did not expect the
acceptance of Major-General McDougall, and that it had a due sense
of his zeal “for the safety and honour of America, and applaud his
magnanimity in declining ‘to retire from the toils and perils of
the field in the present critical condition of the United States in
general, and that of New York in particular.’”[273] Congress made no
other choice of a Secretary of Marine.
During the summer of 1781 the control of naval affairs gravitated
towards Robert Morris. Soon after assuming the office of
Superintendant of Finance in May, 1781, he was brought into close
relation with the navy. He was invited to take upon himself more or
less of the naval business by the urgent need of sending the cruisers
on important errands, the helplessness of the Board of Admiralty,
the inertia of Congress, and the interregnum in the headship of the
Naval Department, which lasted from the discontinuance of the Board
of Admiralty early in July, 1781, until the appointment of an Agent
of Marine on September 7. The figure that Morris presents at this
time is that of the strong and confident man of affairs, sagacious,
expeditious, and painstaking, who is surrounded by weaker men,
hesitating, vacillating, and procrastinating in their administrative
attempts.
In June, 1781, Morris wrote to the President of Congress recommending
the appointment of a captain for the 74-gun ship “America,” and
explaining how money for completing her might be obtained. He says
that he is aware that John Jay has liberty to sell this ship at
the Court of Madrid; that he thinks and hopes that Jay will not
succeed, for the sale of the “America” would be injurious to the
United States; and that it would be “more consistent with Oeconomy
and with the dignity of Congress to have her finished than to let
her Perish.” On the receipt of this letter, Congress authorized
Morris to take measures for launching the “America” and fitting her
for sea.[274] Morris now hinted to the Board of Admiralty that the
frigate “Trumbull” could perform an essential public service if put
under his direction, and pursuing his plan, he obtained a resolution
of Congress giving him control of this vessel.[275] During the summer
of 1781, while the reorganization of the Naval Department was in
suspense, Morris, on his own initiative, directed the fitting out
of the “Alliance” and “Deane,” and ordered them to proceed to sea,
“being convinced that while they lay in port, an useless Expence must
necessarily be incurred.”[276]
Meanwhile, a movement to place the Naval Department under the control
of Morris had been set on foot in Congress. On June 26 Meriwether
Smith of Virginia reported a series of resolutions providing for the
reorganization of the Naval Department, a work which he considered
necessary because the present naval system was “inefficient and
expensive.”[277] The most important of these resolutions was one
which dissolved the offices of the Board of Admiralty, the navy
boards, and the naval agents; and another, which empowered the
Superintendant of Finance to appoint some discreet agent to manage
the navy under the order and inspection of the said superintendant,
until a Secretary of Marine should be appointed, or until the
further pleasure of Congress. On the day of their introduction these
resolutions were referred to a committee, consisting of Meriwether
Smith of Virginia, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and Daniel of St.
Thomas Jenifer, of Maryland. On July 2, having made a slight change
in the phraseology of the resolutions, this committee reported them
to Congress;[278] and on July 6 it again reported them, having
now added a few additional resolutions. One of the latter was to
the effect that the election of a Secretary of Marine should be
postponed until the first Monday in November. On the putting of
this resolution, it passed in the negative. The states divided
sectionally; the four New England states and Delaware voted in the
negative; Pennsylvania and the five Southern states, except South
Carolina which was divided, voted in the affirmative; delegates from
New York and New Jersey were not present in Congress. The vote seems
to indicate the defeat of those who were in favor of placing the navy
under the control of Morris. On the same day, July 6, the remaining
resolutions were referred to a committee consisting of Thomas McKean
of Delaware, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, and Theodoric Bland of
Virginia.[279]
On July 18 the new committee reported a series of resolutions,
differing little from those which had been referred to it, with the
exception of one important change; the Agent of Marine was now to
be appointed, not by Morris, but by Congress. On this day Congress
passed two of the committee’s resolutions. One of these transferred
the care of the marine prisoners from the Board of Admiralty to the
Commissary of Prisoners of the army; and the other ordered the seal
of the admiralty to be deposited with the Secretary of Congress, and
empowered him to use it in countersigning naval commissions. The
remaining resolutions again went over. Congress was able to agree
on the discontinuance of the Board of Admiralty, but not on the
arrangements for its successor.[280]
Finally, the whole business of the re-organization of the Naval
Department was referred to a third committee, composed of Theodoric
Bland of Virginia, James M. Varnum of Rhode Island, and James Duane
of New York. On the report of this committee on August 29, Congress
agreed “that for the present an agent of marine be appointed, with
authority to direct, fit out, equip, and employ the ships and vessels
of war belonging to the United States, according to such instructions
as he shall, from time to time, receive from Congress.” The Agent
of Marine was to direct the selling of all prizes. He was to settle
and pay the naval accounts, and keep a record of his work. As soon
as he entered into the execution of his office, the functions and
appointments of the board of admiralty, the several navy boards,
and all civil officers, appointed under them, should cease and be
determined. The salary of the new head of the Naval Department was
fixed at $1,500 a year, and that of his clerk at $500. Both the Agent
of Marine and his clerk were required to take an oath “well and
faithfully to execute the trust reposed in them, according to the
best of their skill and judgment”; and to give good and sufficient
bond.[281]
These resolutions of August 29 were to be only temporary; and they
did not displace those of February 7, 1781, which provided for a
Secretary of Marine. A second temporary expedient was resorted to on
September 7, when Congress resolved: “That until an agent of marine
shall be appointed by Congress, all the duties, powers, and authority
assigned to the said agent, be devolved upon and executed by the said
superintendant of finance.”[282]
The reason why Congress appointed an Agent of Marine instead of
a Secretary of Marine is not at all points clear. Having failed
to secure the acceptance of McDougall as Secretary of Marine,
Congress may have decided that the small and disheartening business
of the navy would not attract first-rate talent; or that for the
transaction of this business a full-fledged executive department was
not necessary. It is more probable that the appointment of an Agent
of Marine, under the circumstances of a disagreeing Congress, the
failure of the Board of Admiralty, and the improbability of securing
an efficient Secretary, was merely a temporary and feasible expedient
for conducting the affairs of the navy. There are obvious reasons
why the proposal to give the Superintendant of Finance the power to
appoint the Agent of Marine, or the selection of Morris as Agent,
should have aroused vigorous opposition. Men of Samuel Adams’s way
of thinking would oppose it, among other reasons, because it placed
too much power in the hands of one man. The friends of the navy would
dislike to see the Naval Department swallowed up by the Department of
Finance. But on the other hand, many considerations recommended the
step which was finally taken. It was the most economical disposition
of the naval business which could be made. Morris had superior
qualifications for the office, and he was at once available. Indeed,
he was the only man in sight that promised to be equal to the task
of straightening out the tangle of marine accounts, of financing a
bankrupt navy, and of wielding effectively that arm of the military
service. He was admirably qualified for the headship of the Naval
Department by his experience as a man of business, familiar with
accounts and the selection of employees, as the owner of a fleet
of merchantmen, and as one of two or three of the most influential
members of the Marine Committee during the years 1776 and 1777, when
the navy was founded. Whatever may have been the shortcomings of the
navy while Morris was directing it, they did not spring from the lack
of an efficient executive. For the first time during the Revolution
its management was marked by despatch, decision, and an expert and
adequate understanding of its problems.
On September 8, 1781, Morris wrote to the President of Congress
accepting, in words of modesty and reluctance, his appointment as
Agent of Marine. “There are many Reasons,” he said, “why I would have
wished that this Burthen had been laid on other Shoulders, or that at
least I might have been permitted to appoint a temporary Agent untill
the further Pleasure of Congress. As it is I shall undertake the Task
however contrary to my Inclinations and inconsistent with the many
Duties which press heavily upon me, because it will at least save
Money to the Public.” He then added, in a characteristic way, some
observations on his new task. “True Oeconomy in the public business,”
he declared, “consists in employing a sufficient Number of Proper
persons to perform the Public Business.” He wished the accounts of
the marine department to be speedily settled.[283]
Morris filled the office of Agent of Marine from September 7, 1781,
until November 1, 1784. It is believed that he received no salary as
Agent of Marine. In addition to Morris the personnel of the Marine
Office consisted of James Read, Secretary to the Agent of Marine, at
a salary of $1,000 a year; Joseph Pennell, paymaster, at a salary of
$1,000; and George Turner, Commissary of Naval Prisoners, at a salary
of $1,200; the latter officer was authorized on July 24, 1782.[284]
Read, who had been one of the commissioners of the Navy Board of
the Middle Department, was of great service to Morris in conducting
the business of the Marine Office. The clerical work of the Office
was performed by the clerks of the office of the Superintendant of
Finance, an instance of Morris’s economies.
According to the resolutions of September 7, 1781, the positions of
the commissioners of the navy boards were abolished and the positions
of the prize agents were vacated. The Navy Board at Boston continued
however to fit out vessels until March, 1782. It was not until some
time later that it delivered over the books and papers of the Board
to John Brown, the former secretary of the Board of Admiralty, whom
Morris had appointed naval agent for settling the business of the
navy in New England. In the four New England states, North and South
Carolina, and Georgia, Morris either re-appointed the prize agents of
the Board of Admiralty, or appointed new ones; in the other states,
he served in this capacity himself.[285]
The Agent of Marine, like the Board of Admiralty, communicated with
Congress by means of written reports, which that body referred to
special committees of its own members. Accordingly, when naval
business was discussed in Congress, it usually came up in the form
of a “report of a committee on the report of the Agent of Marine.”
The subjects upon which the Agent of Marine reported were similar
to those dealt with by his predecessors in naval administration.
Not a few of his reports were concerned with the settling of marine
accounts, and the satisfying of claimants against the government,
which business was now insistent. During his tenure of the office
of Agent of Marine, Morris prepared the larger part of the naval
legislation of Congress. The changes or additions to his work which
were made by committees of Congress were unimportant.
The law that provides for a change in a governmental system is often
incomplete, and experience under the new order of business soon
suggests the need of supplementary legislation. This was the case
with the laws which transferred the naval business from the Board
of Admiralty to the Agent of Marine. Morris, in one of his first
reports, explained to Congress that he had no power to hold courts
of enquiry; thereupon, Congress, on November 20, 1781, revived the
law of February 8, 1780, on the holding of courts of enquiry and
courts-martial, which had lapsed with the passing of the Board of
Admiralty. Morris’s business-like care for the saving of time and
effort is well shown, when in this report he tactfully suggests that
Congress adapt their act not only to the Agent of Marine, but also
to the Secretary of Marine, so that when the latter is appointed,
“it may not be necessary for him to bring this matter again under
Consideration.”[286]
By the law of November 20 Morris was empowered to constitute a court
of enquiry with three persons; and to constitute a court-martial with
three captains and three first lieutenants of marines, “if there
shall be so many of the marines then present”. But in the event
that so many officers for a court-martial could not be conveniently
assembled, he might appoint any five persons to hold it. Morris,
convinced of the impropriety of constituting naval courts with
civilians, did not wish to avail himself of this latter alternative.
Accordingly, on June 8, 1782, he made a report on naval courts,
which became the basis of the resolutions of Congress of June 12 on
this subject. These provided that in the future a marine court of
enquiry or court-martial for enquiring into and trying capital cases
should consist of five navy and marine officers, two of whom should
be captains; and in all cases not capital, should consist of three
navy and marine officers, one of whom should be a captain in the
navy. No sentence in capital cases was to be executed until approved
by the Agent of Marine. All naval courts for commissioned officers
must be appointed by the Agent of Marine. A captain in the navy might
appoint a court-martial for the trial of offences committed by any
other than a commissioned officer, provided that the sentencing of a
warrant officer to be cashiered should have the confirmation of the
Agent of Marine.[287]
During the incumbency of Morris, no captain in the navy was
cashiered. The findings of a court-martial, which was held in Boston
in the early summer of 1781, possess a peculiar interest, because of
the light which they throw upon the penal code of the Continental
navy, and because this case is one of the first in which a seaman
in the American navy was sentenced to be hanged. Three seamen,
who were enlisted on board the “Alliance,” were tried for a breach
of the 29th article of the rules and regulations of the navy.[288]
Of Patrick Sheridan, the court adjudged that he should be whipped
three hundred and fifty-four lashes upon the naked back, one hundred
and seventy-seven thereof alongside the ship “Alliance,” and the
remainder alongside the ship “Deane.” John Crawford was sentenced to
wear a halter around his neck, and receive fifty lashes. Sheridan and
Crawford were to lose certain wages and their share of prize money.
The court found the third seaman, William McClehany, “peculiarly
Guilty of a breach of all the Clauses in the Article aforesaid,” and
it adjudged that he should “suffer the punishment of death, and that
he be hanged by the neck on the starboard fore Yard Arm of the said
ship ‘Alliance’ until he is dead.”
The Board of Admiralty laid the proceedings of this court-martial
before Congress in July, 1781, but owing to the confusion of the
naval business at this time, and to the carelessness of Congress, no
action was taken on them. When John Brown, the naval agent of the
Agent of Marine, reached Boston, towards the end of 1781, he found
the three men in prison, waiting the execution of their sentences,
and “perishing with cold for want of Cloathing.” The fate of the
three men is best told in Brown’s words: “Under these circumstances
it was the opinion of the Board (and I agreed with them) that as
the proceedings had lain so long before Congress without anything
being done, and it being uncertain when they would act upon them, to
save expence it was best to dispose of the Men in the best manner we
could. Accordingly the two who were sentenced to be whipped were put
on board the Deane, the other was sold by the Sheriff to pay his bill
of fees, keeping, &c., and with the surplus of the money he procured
us three good seamen for the Deane. My motive for concurring in this
proceeding was to save expence and preserve the public Money in my
hands for more Material purposes.”[289]
In December, 1781, and January, 1782, Congress passed an ordinance,
“in pursuance of the powers delegated by the Confederation,” which
codified in great part the previous legislation on captures and
condemnation of prizes, recaptures and salvage, contraband, and
the sharing of prizes between the captors and the government and
between the captors themselves. Several changes were made in previous
resolutions, and a few new ones were added. On their receiving a
reasonable salvage, the recaptors of negroes, mulattoes, Indians,
and indented servants, were to return all such property to its
owners. The new ordinance specified in some detail the various forms
of property which were subject to capture. It contained a revised
list of articles of contraband. It declared that the rules of
decision in the several admiralty courts should be “the resolutions
and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, public
treaties when declared to be so by an act of Congress, and the law of
nations, according to the general usages of Europe;” public treaties
were given precedence over the two other classes of rules.[290] This
ordinance went into operation on February 1, 1782. Its importance
is diminished by reason of its being in force during only the last
year of the war, when the naval activities of the American fleets had
decreased.
It is believed that this ordinance was entirely the work of Congress.
Indeed, it soon appeared that there was at least one provision,
the giving of the whole of certain prizes to captors on board of
Continental vessels, which the Agent of Marine disapproved. In June,
1782, Morris made a report to Congress in which he showed that,
owing to the government’s liberality to its officers and seamen,
it had lost ten thousand dollars on the late successful cruise of
the frigate “Deane,” during which she had captured five prizes of
considerable value. He thought that wages, bounties, and one-half of
prizes were quite sufficient inducements for manning the fleet. In
all cases, however, in which the capture of a vessel of the enemy
was especially meritorious, Morris would have Congress encourage and
stimulate effort and merit in the navy by giving the captors, by a
special act of Congress, the whole of their prizes. On July 10, 1782,
Congress passed an ordinance embodying Morris’s recommendations.[291]
When Morris, on September 7, 1781, became Agent of Marine, the
direction of the movements of the Continental vessels was vested in
him, but with a serious limitation; he was authorized to employ the
armed cruisers “according to such instructions as he shall, from time
to time, receive from Congress.” Morris could never abide indefinite
grants of power which confused authority; and he therefore, by means
of a cleverly written letter, elicited a resolution from Congress
giving him full power “to fit out and employ the ships of war
belonging to these United States, in such manner as shall appear
to him best calculated to promote the interest of these United
States.”[292]
When Morris fell heir to the duties of the Naval Department, in the
summer of 1781, the Continental navy was reduced to small numbers.
There were in active service only five captains and seven lieutenants
in the navy, and three captains and three lieutenants in the marine
corps. Including with these, those officers who were unemployed, were
in private service, were prisoners, or were on parole, there were
twenty-two captains and thirty-nine lieutenants in the navy, and
twelve captains and twelve lieutenants in the marine corps.[293] Only
three vessels were now in commission; the frigate “Trumbull,” 28, at
Philadelphia, and the “Alliance,” 36, and “Deane,” 32, at Boston. The
“America” and “Bourbon” were still on the stocks. About the first of
September, 1782, Morris purchased the ship “Washington,” 20, and in
October he took over into the Continental service in payment for a
debt the ship “Duc de Lauzun,” 20.
The movements of the fleet under Morris’s direction were marked, as
formerly, by bits of good and bad fortune, encounters with naval
ships, privateers, and merchantmen, and voyages to France and the
West Indies. From the summer of 1781 until the end of the war the
little fleet captured twenty prizes, some fifteen of which reached
safe ports. The last of his Majesty’s vessels to surrender to a
Continental ship was the schooner “Jackall,” 20, Commander Logie,
which was taken in the spring of 1782 by Captain Samuel Nicholson,
when in command of the “Deane,” or the “Hague,” as she was now
called. By a singular coincidence the first, and the last, valuable
prize captured by a Continental ship during the Revolution, were
taken by Captain John Manly. On one of the last days of November,
1775, he received the surrender of the brig “Nancy,” a transport; and
in January, 1783, while in command of the “Hague” he captured the
ship “Baille” of 340 tons burden, with a cargo consisting of sixteen
hundred barrels of provisions.[294]
One of the most interesting, varied, and fortunate cruises of the
war was made by Captain John Barry in the “Alliance,” 36, one of the
largest and best-built vessels of the Continental navy. Barry left
New London on August 4, 1782, and having visited the region of the
Bermudas, and the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, he sailed eastward
and overhauled a fleet of Jamaicamen, and arrived at L’Orient on
October 17. He had captured nine prizes, four of which he carried
into L’Orient. These four ships were Jamaicamen, and with their rich
cargoes of rum and sugar, they sold for £620,610, one of the largest
sums realized on any cruise during the Revolution. On December 8,
Captain Barry left France for the West Indies. Having made a call
at Madeira, Barry early in January, 1783, anchored at St. Pierre,
Martinique, where he found a letter from the Agent of Marine
ordering him to proceed to Havana and convoy the “Duc de Lauzun” to
Philadelphia. About the first of February the “Alliance” arrived
at Havana, after she had put into St. Eustatius and Cape Francois,
and had been chased by one fleet off Porto Rico and another off
Hispaniola. On account of the closing of the port of Havana, Barry
was detained here a month. After considerable correspondence with the
Governor of Havana, Barry on March 6 was permitted to sail with his
convoy, which had on board seventy-two thousand dollars in specie. On
March 10, 1783, Barry fell in with a British vessel, which is said
to have been the frigate “Sibylle,” 32, and he now fought the last
naval engagement of the Revolution. It lasted forty-five minutes,
ended indecisively, and resulted in the loss of ten men on board the
“Alliance;” the loss of the British is unknown. The two American
vessels now parted company, and each soon reached a safe port; the
“Alliance” arrived at Newport, Rhode Island, on March 20, and the
“Duc de Lauzun” anchored at Philadelphia on March 21. It was now
two months since the Preliminary Articles of Peace had been signed
at Versailles.[295] The naval movements of the Continental vessels
during the Revolution ended with the arrivals of these two vessels.
While Morris had the direction of the fleet, only one vessel was
captured by the enemy, and this before he became Agent of Marine. In
July, 1781, he ordered the “Trumbull,” 28, Captain James Nicholson,
to proceed to Havana with despatches, letters, and a cargo of flour.
The “Trumbull” had scarcely cleared the Capes of the Delaware, on
August 8, when she was chased by the frigate “Iris,” 32, Captain
George Dawson. Encountering a storm, the “Trumbull” was dismasted,
and thus crippled she was overtaken by the “Iris.” The “Trumbull’s”
crew were a sorry lot; some of them were British deserters, and
others were cowardly and disaffected. It was late in the evening when
the fight began. Many of the crew now put out their battle lanterns
and flew from their quarters. Captain Nicholson and his officers,
with a handful of seamen, bravely defended their ship against
impossible odds for an hour before they surrendered. Nicholson lost
sixteen men; two of his lieutenants were wounded. It is recalled that
the “Iris” was originally the “Hancock,” of the Continental navy, and
that she was the first of the thirteen original frigates to surrender
to the enemy. The “Iris” was a fast ship, and is said to have made
the fortunes of all the British captains that commanded her. It was
the irony of fate that the first of the thirteen frigates to be
captured should receive the surrender of the last remaining one. A
letter from New York, dated August 11, 1781, informs us that “this
day arrived the celebrated rebel frigate named the Trumbull.”[296]
The attempts of Morris, in 1782, to obtain an increase in the
naval force of Congress, form one of the most interesting and
characteristic parts of his naval work. The surrender of Cornwallis
on October 19, 1781, was not considered by many contemporaneous
Americans as an event that must necessarily end the Revolution.
Indeed, the final outcome of the war was in doubt for more than a
year. The Agent of Marine was too cautious and conservative to count
on peace before its actual accomplishment had been sealed by a formal
treaty. After the surrender of Cornwallis he not only continued to
send the Continental cruisers against the enemy, but whenever an
occasion presented, he vigorously urged on Congress the necessity
of a naval increase. To the mind of Morris the need of a navy in
1782 was greater than it had been at any previous time during the
Revolution. He conceived that up to this time Britain had attempted
to conquer the Colonies on land by means of her army; since she had
been defeated in this, it was now her purpose to starve the Colonies
into submission by means of her navy and superior sea-power. The
United States must meet the enemy’s change of tactics by building a
navy.
In April, 1782, Morris took steps to have the frigate “Bourbon”
completed. Congress was not convinced of the expediency of this, and
was inclined to sell the frigate in its unfinished state. Morris
wrote reprovingly to Congress that the most economical thing to do
was to complete the vessel; and that “there is also a degree of
Dignity in carrying through such measures as Congress have once
adopted, unless some change of circumstances renders the execution
improper.” He then added: “The present circumstances of the United
States I apprehend to be such as should induce our attention to the
re-establishment of a Naval Force, and altho’ former attempts have
proved unfortunate, we must not take it for granted that future
Essays will be unsuccessful. Altho’ the Naval Force of our enemy is
powerful, and their Ships Numerous, yet that Force is opposed by
equal Numbers, so as to give them much more employment than at the
time our infant Fleet was Crushed.”[297]
On May 10, 1782, in response to a request of Congress, Morris
submitted an exhaustive report on the state of American commerce.
Referring to the intentions of the British, he declared that having
been compelled to abandon the idea of conquest, their avowed design
was to annihilate the American commerce. The plans of the enemy could
be frustrated and the American trade protected by so small a fleet
as two ships of the line and ten frigates. The ships of the line,
together with two frigates, should be stationed in the Chesapeake, to
cruise as occasion might require. The frigates should be divided into
two equal squadrons, each of which should serve as a convoy of the
American trade between the United States and France. By each squadron
making two round trips a year, a quarterly communication both ways
between these two countries would be established. The United States
of course could not provide this service, but the ships which the
plan required might be detailed from the French or Spanish fleet.
“It is to be hoped,” Morris said, “that if the war continues much
longer, the United States will be able to provide the necessary force
for themselves, which at present they are not, tho’ if the above
arrangements take place, they might now provide for the trade from
America to the West Indies.” Congress authorized Morris to apply to
both Spain and France for the needed vessels.[298]
But a more extensive naval plan than this was in Morris’s mind,
and one which could be undertaken independent of foreign ships. On
July 30, 1782, he submitted to Congress an estimate for the public
services of the United States for the year 1783, amounting in all
to eleven millions of dollars. More than one-fifth of this sum was
to be spent on the navy. “Congress will observe,” he said, “that
the estimates for the Marine Department amount to two Millions and
a half, whereas there was no Estimate made for that Service in the
last year any more than for the civil list.” Morris based this most
remarkable recommendation for a naval increase on the belief that
the enemy had changed his mode of warfare, and that it was now his
purpose to annihilate the commerce of America, and thus starve her
into submission. With this sort of a campaign, conducted by the
enemy, an American army without a navy would be burdensome without
being able to accomplish anything. With a navy, we could prevent
the enemy from making predatory excursions, ruining our commerce,
and capturing our supplies; he would either be compelled to keep a
superior naval force in this country, which would give our allies a
naval superiority elsewhere; or else he must permit the balance of
naval strength in America to be on our side; in which latter case we
could protect our trade, annoy his commerce and cut off the supplies
which he would be sending to his posts in America. Then, concluded
Morris in words which remind one of the annual report of some recent
Secretary of the Navy asking for the yearly quota of battleships: “By
oeconomizing our Funds and constructing six ships annually we should
advance so rapidly to Maritime importance that our enemy would be
convinced not only of the Impossibility of subduing us, but also of
the Certainty that his forces in this Country must eventually be lost
without being able to produce him any possible Advantage;” and we
should in this way regain the “full Possession of our Country without
the Expence of Blood, or treasure, which must attend any other Mode
of Operations, and while we are pursuing those Steps which lead to
the Possession of our natural Strength and Defence.”[299]
The signing on November 30, 1782, of the Provisional Articles of
Peace between the United States and Great Britain, news of which
reached America early in the spring of 1783, removed the necessity
of a naval increase, and in the minds of many the need of a navy at
all. Morris did not at once give up the notion that the government on
a peace footing should maintain a respectable marine. In May, 1783,
he asked Congress to relieve him of his naval duties. “The affairs of
the Marine Department,” he writes, “occupy more time and attention
than I can easily spare. This Department will now become important,
and I hope extensive. I must therefore request that Congress will be
pleased to appoint an Agent of Marine as soon as their convenience
will admit.”[300] He became convinced however that not much could
be done for the navy until the finances of Congress were placed
on a better and more permanent basis. In July, 1783, Morris made
a report on a proposition of Virginia offering to sell her naval
ship “Cormorant” to the United States. Congress agreed to his
report, which was as follows: “That although it is an object highly
desirable, to establish a respectable marine, yet the situation of
the public treasury renders it not advisable to purchase ships for
the present, nor until the several states shall grant such funds for
the construction of ships, docks, naval arsenals, and for the support
of the naval service, as shall enable the United States to establish
their marine upon a permanent and respectable footing.”[301]
Meanwhile, Congress had been rapidly going out of the naval business,
by formally ending the war at sea, by providing for the settlement
of marine accounts, and by disposing of its naval stock. On March
24, 1783, it ordered the Agent of Marine to recall all armed
vessels cruising under the American colors. On April 11 it issued a
“Proclamation, Declaring the Cessation of arms, as well by Sea as
by Land, agreed upon between the United States of America and His
Britannic Majesty; and enjoining the observance thereof.” On April 15
it ordered the Agent of Marine to set free all the naval prisoners of
the enemy.[302]
During the last year of the Revolution and for several years
after its close, one of the principal administrative tasks of
the government was the settling of the outstanding accounts of
the several executive departments. This was a work fraught with
extraordinary difficulties. The administration of a government
founded and conducted amid the distractions of war was necessarily
marked by irregularities in official procedure, the lack of system
in accounting, and in general by haphazard ways of business. On
February 27, 1782, Congress acting on the recommendation of Morris
authorized him to appoint five commissioners with full power and
authority to liquidate and finally settle the Revolutionary accounts.
Each commissioner was paid $1,500 a year; he was permitted to employ
a clerk. The states were recommended to empower the commissioners to
examine witnesses under oath. Each commissioner was given charge of a
certain class of accounts; to one of the five men fell the settling
of the accounts of the Naval Department. Owing to Morris’s caution
in making appointments, and to the obstacles that stood in the way
of a wise choice, the “commissioner for settling the accounts of
the marine department” was not selected until June 19, 1783, when
Joseph Pennell, the paymaster of the Marine Office, was named for the
place.[303] By the fall of 1783 Pennell was settled in his work, and
was complaining of its arduousness. He soon found himself involved
in a dispute with the members of the old Naval Committee. He said
that they had received money from Congress for which they had not
accounted; and that, according to the vouchers, they had paid one
debt twice. He found that the members of the Marine Committee were
individually charged with the moneys they had received; and that when
they left the Committee, they made no settlement. In many instances
vouchers were lacking. Statements from members of the Navy Boards and
from the naval agents could be obtained only with great difficulty,
as these men were now discharged, and they were often scattered. He
discovered that the prize agents made no uniform charge for their
services; some exacted five, and others two and a half per cent on
the receipts from the sale of prizes. Offices for settling the naval
accounts were opened in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. On the
retirement of Morris, Pennell became responsible to the new Board of
Treasury.[304]
In the last year of the war Congress began to dispose of its naval
craft. On September 3, 1782, the 74-gun ship “America” now at last
almost ready for launching was on the recommendation of the Agent of
Marine given to France to replace the ship of the line “Magnifique,”
74, which the French fleet had recently lost in Boston harbor.
Congress, “desirous of testifying on this occasion to his Majesty,
the sense they entertain of his generous exertions in behalf of
the United States,” directed the Agent of Marine to present the
“America” to Luzerne, the French minister at Philadelphia, for the
service of His Most Christian Majesty.[305] It was a gracious act of
international friendship. In April, 1783, the “Duc de Lauzun” was
lent to the French minister to carry home some French troops, after
which service she was to be sold.[306] In July Morris ordered the
“Hague” to be sold, and recommended to Congress a like disposition
of the “Bourbon,” which latter ship in all probability had been
recently launched.[307] In March, 1784, Morris recommended the sale
of the “Alliance,” as she was “now a mere bill of costs;” and also
the “Washington,” because much money would be required to repair her,
and there was no need to employ her as a packet, since the French
and English had established a mail service.[308] Lieutenant Joshua
Barney, acting as the agent for the Naval Department, sold the
“Washington” in Baltimore in the summer of 1784.
The members of Congress were not unanimous on the question of
the proper disposition of the “Alliance.” On January 15, 1784, a
committee of three reported: “That the honour of the Flag of the
United States and the protection of its trade and coasts from the
insults of pirates require that the Frigate of Alliance should be
repaired.”[309] A committee in March, 1784, and another in May,
1785, recommended her sale.[310] Finally, on June 3, 1785, Congress
directed the Board of Treasury “to sell for specie or public
securities, at public or private sale, the frigate Alliance, with
her tackle and appurtenances.”[311] In August, 1785, the Board of
Treasury sold this vessel for £2,887, to be paid in United States
certificates of public debt. The purchasers afterwards sold the
“Alliance” at a great profit to Robert Morris. In June, 1787, this
vessel sailed for Canton, China, as a merchantman.[312] From the
sale of the “Alliance” until the establishment of a new navy under
the Constitution in 1794 it was left to the stars and stripes
floating from American merchantmen to familiarize foreign ports and
seas with the symbol of the new Nation.
Congress did not formally end the naval establishment by act or
resolution, unless one considers that such was the effect of the
resolution of January 25, 1780, which provided that the pay of all
naval officers except those in actual service should cease. After
this date it would seem that as the vessels were captured, sold, or
thrown out of commission, the names of the officers were taken from
the pay-roll. In September, 1783, an unsuccessful attempt was made in
Congress to discontinue the Agent of Marine.[313] Morris continued in
office until November 1, 1784, when he retired from public service.
Congress made no move to fill his place as Agent of Marine, for there
was little need for such an official. Certain unimportant naval
business, chiefly concerned with the settlement of naval accounts,
remained, however, to be transacted. This for the most part naturally
fell to the Board of Treasury, organized in the spring of 1785. This
Board, aided by the commissioner for settling the marine accounts,
and by James Read, the efficient secretary to the Agent of Marine,
with whom Morris on retiring left the books and papers of the Naval
Department, wound up the small, unimportant, and dwindling business
of the navy.
FOOTNOTES:
[266] Ford’s Washington, IX, 75-76, Washington to James Duane,
December 26, 1780; 33-5, Washington to John Sullivan, November 20,
1780; 125, Washington to R. R. Livingston, January 31, 1781; 131-34,
Washington to John Sullivan, February 4, 1781; 246, Washington to
John Sullivan, May 11, 1781.
[267] Hamilton’s Hamilton, I, 127, note, Hamilton to Robert Morris,
1780; 154-55, 159, Hamilton to James Duane, September 3, 1780.
[268] Sparks’s Gouverneur Morris, I, 229-30.
[269] Sparks’s Gouverneur Morris, I, 227-28; Reed’s Reed, II, 296.
[270] Journals of Continental Congress, January 10, 1781.
[271] Wells, Samuel Adams, III, 127, Adams to Lee, January 15, 1781;
128, extract from a letter of Luzerne, French minister to the United
States.
[272] Journals of Continental Congress, February 7, February 9, 1781.
On October 1, 1781, the salary of the Secretary of Marine was fixed
at $4,000 per annum, payable in specie.
[273] Journals of Continental Congress, February 27, March 30, 1781.
Three states were willing to accept McDougall on the conditions he
proposed. Samuel Adams and his friends voted against acceptance.
[274] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 47, 55,
Morris to President of Congress, June 22, 1781; Ibid., 28, p. 145,
Report of Committee respecting “America”; journals of Continental
Congress, June 23, 1781.
[275] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 77;
Journals of Continental Congress, July 11, 1781.
[276] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 137, Morris
to President of Congress, September 10, 1781.
[277] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 28, p. 135,
Resolutions of M. Smith.
[278] Ibid., p. 133, Report of Committee on Smith’s resolutions.
[279] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 28, p. 149,
Resolutions of Committee; Journals of Continental Congress, July 6,
1781.
[280] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 28, p. 147, Report
of Committee on July 18; Journals of Continental Congress, July 18,
1781.
[281] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 28, p. 157;
Journals of Continental Congress, August 29, 1781.
[282] Journals of Continental Congress, September 7, 1781.
[283] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 133, Morris
to President of Congress, September 8, 1781.
[284] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, II, 183.
[285] M. I. J. Griffin, Commodore John Barry, 169.
[286] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 233, Morris
to President of Congress, November 17, 1781; Journals of Continental
Congress, November 20, 1781.
[287] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 543, Report
of Morris, June 3, 1782; Journals of Continental Congress, June 12,
1782.
[288] The 29th article of Adams’s rules as adopted by Congress in
1775 fixed penalties for desertion and cowardice. It is not likely
that the numbering was changed. I know of no earlier instance of the
sentencing of a seaman in the American navy to be hanged.
[289] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 367,
Finding of Court Martial, dated June 28, 1781; 365, Morris to
President of Congress, March 25, 1782, containing extract from
Brown’s letter.
[290] Journals of Continental Congress, December 4, 1781, January 8,
1782.
[291] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 559, Morris
to President of Congress, June 20, 1782; Journals of Continental
Congress, July 10, 1782.
[292] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 137, Morris
to President of Congress, September 10, 1781; Journals of Congress,
September 12, 1781.
[293] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 37, p. 473.
[294] Boston Gazette, January 27, 1783.
[295] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, II, 103;
M. I. J. Griffin, Commodore John Barry, 162-248, prints many
contemporaneous papers relating to Barry’s cruise.
[296] Clowes, Royal Navy, IV, 72, 73; Pennsylvania Packet, August 16,
1781.
[297] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 415, Morris
to President of Congress, April 24, 1782.
[298] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 447, Report
of Morris, May 10, 1782.
[299] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, I, 713,
Estimate for public services for 1783, July 30, 1782.
[300] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, II, 425,
Morris to President of Congress, May 3, 1783.
[301] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, II, 725,
Report of Morris, July 31, 1783; Journals of Continental Congress,
August 5, 1783.
[302] Journals of Continental Congress, March 24, April 11, April 15,
1783.
[303] Journals of Continental Congress, February 27, 1782, June 19,
1783.
[304] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, III, 651, 655,
Morris to President of Congress, May 26, 1784, enclosing extract of
letter of Pennell.
[305] Journals of Continental Congress, September 3, 1782.
[306] Ibid., April 21, 1783.
[307] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 137, III, 677,
Report of Morris, July 22, 1783.
[308] Force Transcripts, Library of Congress, 137, 3, p. 243, Report
of Morris, March 19, 1784.
[309] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 28, p. 221, Report
of Committee, January 15, 1784.
[310] Ibid., 28, pp. 213, 225-27, Reports of Committees.
[311] Journals of Continental Congress, June 3, 1785.
[312] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 140, II, 45, Board
of Treasury to President of Congress, August 5, 1785; M. I. J.
Griffin, Commodore John Barry, 258-59.
[313] Journals of Continental Congress, September 16, 1783.
CHAPTER IX
NAVAL DUTIES OF AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
On the outbreak of the war between the Colonies and the
mother-country, Congress turned with true political insight to France
for aid. The self-interest of no other country in Europe gave so
good a basis for friendship and alliance with America. To France,
the success of the revolting British Colonies meant the humbling
of a victorious rival, the turning of a part of Britain’s valuable
colonial trade into French channels, and probably a reopening of the
trial at arms of the Seven Years’ War and a reversal of some of its
humiliating decisions. Common interests led the two countries to
coöperate in achieving and furthering their objects and ambitions;
and this led to the establishing of intimate diplomatic, commercial,
and naval relations between them. Many of the duties that grew
out of these three classes of relations had to be transacted in
France, and they therefore necessitated the appointment of American
representatives to be resident in that country. The naval duties of
these representatives were numerous and important. They involved the
renting, purchase, and building of naval vessels; the officering,
manning, and fitting out of vessels; the directing of cruises;
the purchase of naval supplies; the disciplining of officers; the
paying of officers and crews; the disposing of prizes; the devising
of naval plans; the commissioning of privateers; the caring for
naval prisoners and the negotiating for their exchange; and the
disseminating of naval intelligence. The vesting of these duties in
the American representatives in France virtually constituted the
establishment of a Brandi Naval Office at Paris.[314]
Besides the above duties, which may be considered strictly naval in
character, the American representatives had other business closely
related to their admiralty work, but which was also intimately
connected with their diplomatic and commercial work. For instance,
dealings with breaches of neutrality committed by American ships
had to do equally with diplomatic and naval affairs. The selling of
colonial products which the Commercial Committee of the Continental
Congress exported to France, and the buying of French manufactures
which the American representatives shipped to America, were of course
commercial duties. These transactions, however, came into contact
with naval affairs when the goods purchased in France happened to be
naval stores, or when naval ships carried the goods or convoyed the
merchantmen which carried them. For the sake of obtaining a complete
view of the admiralty work of the American representatives in
France, this chapter will touch upon naval duties of all sorts even
though their diplomatic and commercial aspects stand out the most
prominently.
The first naval business of the Colonies in France fell to Silas
Deane, a political and commercial agent of the Continental Congress,
who arrived at Paris in July, 1776. In December, 1776, Deane was
succeeded by three American commissioners to the Court of France,
Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, and Arthur Lee. These three men
shared the naval duties of their office until the spring of 1778,
when Deane was superseded by John Adams. In February, 1779, Franklin,
who had been chosen Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of France,
fell heir along with the other duties of the commissioners to those
of a naval character; and he continued in this office until the end
of the Revolution. Of the first three commissioners Silas Deane had
the most to do with the naval business. He says that the management
of the Continental ships of war and of their prizes which was a “most
complicated and embarrassing part of our affairs” fell entirely upon
himself.[315] When Deane was superseded, it would seem that his
naval duties fell to Franklin rather than to Adams. Franklin had at
all times the chief part of the work of exchanging naval prisoners
with Great Britain; and Adams excelled the other commissioners in
transmitting to the home government naval intelligence.
The headquarters of the Naval Office were of course situated at
Paris, several hundred miles from the ports frequented by the
Continental vessels. This was a great disadvantage, as it caused
delays in communicating with the naval officers and naval agents,
besides other inconveniences. The Office gave its orders as a rule
by letter, but now and then when its officers and agents visited
Paris, it communicated with them by word of mouth. Its official
correspondence with the home government was carried on almost
exclusively with the “Foreign Office” at Philadelphia—that is, at
first with the Committee of Secret Correspondence, then with the
Committee of Foreign Affairs, and finally with the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs. A few letters passed between the Naval Office at
Paris and the Naval Department in America. The secretary and the
clerks, first of the Commissioners, and later of the Minister at the
Court of France, assisted in transacting the naval business.
The American representatives at Paris employed agents in a number
of the chief Atlantic ports of France to transact their naval and
commercial business. The principal agencies were at Nantes, L’Orient,
Bordeaux, Brest, and Dunkirk. There were also agencies at Bilbao,
and Coruña, Spain; and in Holland. It is difficult to separate the
naval and commercial duties of these agencies, as they were vested
in the same men. The whole subject is exceedingly complicated. For
transacting naval business, Nantes was the most important agency,
although L’Orient was not far behind it. At Nantes in 1777 within
a comparatively short period of time one finds Thomas Morris, a
half-brother of Robert Morris, William Lee, a brother of Richard
Henry Lee, Jonathan Williams, a nephew of Franklin, John Ross, a
Philadelphia merchant, and a certain German merchant by the name
of Schweighauser exercising similar duties. William Lee was for a
time commercial agent for all of France, and his authority of course
came in contact with that of the Commissioners at Paris.[316] Such
divisions and duplications of powers resulted in much contention,
misunderstanding, and jealousy. John Adams tells us that when he
arrived in France in the spring of 1778 he found in some places
two or three persons claiming the character of American agents;
and that at one port, three agents had been appointed, one by the
Commissioners at Paris, another by the commercial agent of France,
and a third by the Commercial Committee of Congress. “We have such
abuses and irregularities every day occurring as are very alarming.
Agents of various sorts are drawing bills upon us, and the commanders
of vessels of war are drawing upon us for expenses and supplies
which we never ordered.” Moved by the reformatory zeal that so often
characterizes the new appointee to public office, Adams attempted to
reduce the business of Congress in France to some system.[317]
The Naval Office at Paris appointed several naval officers by filling
out blank commissions and warrants, which had been signed and sent
by the President of Congress for that purpose. Late in the war the
question arose as to the proper rank in the navy of some of these
appointments. In certain specific cases which were referred to Robert
Morris as Agent of Marine, he recommended that new commissions be
granted dated as the old, and that the officers receiving them take
rank according to the dates of their old commissions. The Naval
Office granted commissions of captain to Gustavus Conyngham, Samuel
Nicholson, Peter Landais, and John Green. On the recommendation of
John Paul Jones it appointed Richard Dale to be a lieutenant on board
the “Bon Homme Richard.” Dale became an officer of distinction in
the new navy under the Constitution, where he rose to the rank of
commodore. Landais was the only Frenchman who received a permanent
commission as captain in the Continental navy.
Silas Deane had a penchant for recommending French officers; and he
was very credulous as to the compliments expressed by themselves and
their friends in their behalf. On November 28, 1776, Deane wrote
to the Committee of Secret Correspondence as follows, having just
referred to certain army officers whom he was sending to America:
“As to sea officers, they are not so easily obtained, yet some good
ones may be had, and in particular two, one of whom I have already
mentioned; the other is quite his equal, with some other advantages;
he was first lieutenant of a man-of-war, round the World with Captain
Cook, and has since had a ship, but wants to leave this for other
service where he may make a settlement and establish a family. These
two officers would engage a number of younger ones, should they
embark. I send herewith the plans of one of them for burning ships.”
The French officer who designed these plans, also made “drafts of
ships and rates for constructing and regulating a navy,” of which
Deane had the “highest opinion.” This officer, Deane said, “has seen
much service, is a person of study and letters, as well as fortune,
and is ambitious of planning a navy for America, which shall at once
be much cheaper and more effectual than anything of the kind which
can be produced on the European system.”[318]
That Deane gave too ready an ear to the soft words of the French,
is clear from his extravagant recommendations of the erratic and
troublesome French captain, Peter Landais. Deane said that Landais
would be a “valuable acquisition to our Navy;” and that he was a
“skilful seaman of long Experience in every Part of the World, of
good judgment and the most unsuspicious honor and Probity.” In May,
1778, Congress continued Landais in the naval service; but directed
“the commissioners of the United States at foreign courts” not to
“recommend any foreign sea-officers, nor give any of them the least
expectation of being employed as captains in the navy.”[319]
The Naval Office at Paris issued a few commissions to privateers. As
early as October, 1776, Deane was writing to the Committee of Secret
Correspondence for blank commissions. Private as well as public
interests were involved in the cruises of Captain Gustavus Conyngham
in European waters. Carmichael, a Marylander and an employee in
France of Congress and the Commissioners at Paris, asserted that
Deane in 1777 intended to equip a vessel in the Mediterranean sea
partly on public and partly on private account, that an agent was
employed who succeeded in buying a vessel, but that the state of
Genoa interposed and stopped the enterprise.[320] Two famous, or
better infamous, letters of marque were fitted out at Dunkirk and
commissioned by the Naval Office in 1779. They were named the “Black
Prince” and the “Black Princess.” Their crews were a malodorous
medley, containing “a few Americans, mixed with Irish and English
smugglers.” These smugglers had recently broken prison in Dublin,
recaptured their smuggling vessel, and escaped to Dunkirk. Should
they be recaptured by the English and their identity be discovered,
they would be forced to suffer the penalty for smuggling. As they
spoke English, it was thought that their past character might be
best concealed by giving them an American commission, instead of a
French one. These two privateers captured or destroyed upwards of
one hundred and twenty sail of the British, and insulted “the coasts
of these lords of the ocean.” In the summer of 1780, the “Black
Prince” was wrecked on the coast of France, and the commission of
the “Black Princess,” upon the request of Vergennes, the French
Minister of Foreign Affairs, was recalled by Franklin.[321] In 1780
certain American prisoners, who had escaped, fitted out a privateer
at Cadiz in Spain and asked Jay, the American minister at Madrid, for
a commission. He referred them to Franklin.[322]
When the American Commissioners assembled in Paris in December, 1776,
to begin their mission, they had with them the orders of Congress
to purchase, arm, and equip a frigate and two cutters. They were to
send the frigate cruising against the enemy in the English channel,
and were to employ the cutters in transporting supplies to America.
The Commissioners were further directed to hire or buy at the
French Court eight line of battle ships.[323] They began to carry
out these orders in January, 1777, when Captain Samuel Nicholson
was sent to Boulogne to purchase one of the cutters; in the spring
a lugger was obtained at Dover, England; and in the early summer
another cutter was bought at Dunkirk. In the two latter transactions
William Hodge, a merchant from Philadelphia, acted as the agent of
the Commissioners. Early in the year Captain Lambert Wickes, who
had in December, 1776, arrived in France in the Continental sloop
“Reprisal” with Dr. Franklin on board, was inspecting vessels for
the Commissioners. Nicholson’s cutter was named the “Dolphin;” and
Hodge’s two vessels were called, respectively, the “Surprise” and the
“Revenge.” It is believed that the “Revenge” was purchased jointly on
public and private account. After this vessel’s first cruise it is
known that Hodge and possibly others were pecuniarily interested in
its ventures.
By the fall of 1777 the Commissioners had completed the construction
of a 32-gun frigate at Nantes, which they called the “Deane.” They
also purchased a ship which they fitted out as a 28-gun frigate and
named the “Queen of France.” Early in 1778 they sent the “Deane”
under the command of Captain Samuel Nicholson, and the “Queen of
France” under the command of Captain John Green, both vessels laden
with supplies, to Boston. The “Deane” remained in the navy until the
end of the Revolution. The “Queen of France” was surrendered to the
British in May, 1780, on the fall of Charleston, South Carolina. On
the application of the Commissioners to the French Court for the loan
or sale of some ships of the line, they were told that the French
government considered it absolutely necessary to keep the whole
of its fleet at home ready for the defence of France in case of a
rupture with Great Britain; but, that, since England was apprehensive
of a war with France, such a disposition of the French naval forces
was serviceable to America in so far as it forced England to retain
an equal force in the British seas.[324]
In the spring of 1777 the Commissioners received orders from Congress
to build six vessels of war; but before this, they had on their own
responsibility contracted with “one of the ablest sea officers of
France, skilled in all the arts relating to the marine,” who had
offered “his services to our States, with the permission of the
minister,” to “superintend the building of two ships of war, of a
particular construction, which, though not of half the cost, shall
be superior in force and utility to ships of sixty-four guns.”
This officer had already built a vessel of this type for the King
of France which the Commissioners were told “exceeds everything in
swift sailing.”[325] Only one of these frigates, which was named the
“Indian,” was placed upon the stocks, and this one at Amsterdam. To
conceal its ownership and destination it was built in the name of
a private individual. The Commissioners wrote in the fall of 1777,
when the ship was almost finished, that it was a large frigate
and was supposed to equal a ship of the line, as it would carry
thirty 24-pounders on one deck. The ship did not get to sea under
Continental colors. Owing to the many difficulties of equipping and
manning so large a ship in a neutral port, and to the lack of money
necessary for such work, the Commissioners sold it to the King of
France for a sum equal to that which they had expended upon it; the
King at the same time agreed to pension well the officer who had
built it.[326] With the sale of this frigate the work of the Naval
Office at Paris in naval construction came to a close. The “Indian”
was finally rented to the state of South Carolina. In 1779 and 1780
the French government loaned several vessels to the Naval Office.
During the years 1777, 1778, and 1779, the fitting out of Continental
armed vessels, as well those which were sent to France from America,
as those which were originally obtained by the Commissioners, was
a severe tax on the slender resources of the Continental treasury
at Paris. After a long voyage or cruise a wooden sailing vessel
needed much repairing. Perchance, it must be careened and cleaned or
repaired below the water line; new masts and spars were often needed;
and old sails had to be mended and new ones provided. Always, the
vessel before beginning a new cruise must be freshly provisioned; and
its crew, depleted by battle, desertion, and the dispensations of
Providence, had to be replenished. The enlisting of a few recruits
was not a difficult thing at this time, for there was human driftwood
in every port of Christendom, of divers nationalities, willing to
ship under any flag. Many Frenchmen enlisted in French ports on
board American vessels. In 1782 Franklin said he was continually
pestered by such Frenchmen, who, being put on board prizes, had been
captured by the English, and were now demanding arrears of pay.[327]
In May, 1779, Franklin was complaining to Congress that the expense
of fitting out each Continental cruiser which it sent to France
amounted to 60,000 or 70,000 livres. He said that Mr. Bingham, the
Continental agent at Martinique, had recently drawn upon him for the
expense of fitting out two Continental cruisers which had recently
put in to that island, but for lack of money he would be obliged to
protest Bingham’s bill.[328] The American representatives in France
fitted out and loaded with supplies for America both Continental
vessels and French and American merchantmen. This work properly forms
a part of their commercial duties. Deane tells us that while he
was in France he expended more than ten million livres for stores,
goods, and ships; and that he loaded sixteen ships for America.[329]
The commercial agents had much to do with this work; Nantes was the
principal shipping port.
Before the treaties of February, 1778, between the United States
and France, the disposing of prizes captured by American vessels in
French ports was exceedingly informal. Since France was obliged to
at least make a pretence of observing her treaties with England and
the laws of neutrality, she could not permit a trial of American
prize cases in her admiralty courts. Consequently, prizes captured
by American vessels were disposed of without trial and legal
condemnation; they were taken into the offing of French ports and
secretly sold to French merchants at a great sacrifice to the
captors. After February, 1778, the prizes were legally tried, but not
according to a uniform practice. Some cases were tried by the French
admiralty courts; but in other cases the French courts prepared the
_proces verbaux_, which they sent to Franklin; he then condemned the
prizes and ordered the court to sell them. After July, 1780, Franklin
ceased to exercise such judicial functions.[330]
One of the objects of the cruises of Continental vessels in European
waters was to capture Englishmen and exchange them for American
naval prisoners languishing in prisons in England. These imprisoned
Americans were confined chiefly at Forton prison at Portsmouth,
and Mill prison at Plymouth. A list of prisoners confined at Mill
prison during the Revolution, which contains 947 names, has been made
out.[331] In April, 1782, there were eleven hundred Americans in
the jails of England and Ireland, all committed to prison as charged
with high treason.[332] A few Americans were confined at Gibraltar.
These prisoners often suffered greatly from a lack of sufficient
food, clothing, bedding, and fuel. This was in part caused by the
cruelty and fraud of those whom the British government entrusted with
the supply and control of its prisons. The rigors of their captivity
were softened, and their deprivations in a measure relieved by money
which Franklin sent from Paris, and by private subscriptions in their
behalf made by generous Englishmen.
To escape their penury and distress some prisoners enlisted in the
enemy’s navy, or joined the British whaling fleets. Others escaped
from prison; some of these burrowed their way out, committing
treason through His Majesty’s earth, to use a phrase of Captain
Conyngham, who, with sixty companions, in this way escaped from Mill
prison in November, 1779. These escaped prisoners gradually found
their way into Holland, the seaports of France, or even Paris; and
they often became a tax upon Franklin’s pity, and the Continental
treasury in his keeping. Franklin was deeply moved by the sufferings
of these men, whether confined in England or at liberty in France.
His efforts in their behalf are an important part of his work and
achievements in France.
A long correspondence directed towards securing an exchange of
Englishmen captured by American vessels and confined in France for
Americans confined in England was conducted by Franklin with his
friend Hartley in England. Hartley was a noble-minded and humane
Englishman, who was, at the time, a member of the House of Commons.
The first letters on the exchanging of prisoners were written,
however, by the American Commissioners, to Lord Stormont, the British
Ambassador at Paris. The Commissioners stated that Captain Wickes,
of the Continental cruiser “Reprisal,” had in his possession one
hundred captured British seamen, and they wished to exchange them for
an equal number of American seamen, prisoners in England. The first
letter of the Commissioners Lord Stormont ignored. To the second
letter, or possibly to the third, he replied in those well-known
words: “The King’s Ambassador receives no applications from rebels,
unless they come to implore His Majesty’s mercy.” The reply of the
Commissioners was equally spirited: “In answer to a letter which
concerns some of the most material interests of humanity, and of
the two nations, Great Britain and the United States of America,
now at war, we received the enclosed indecent paper, as coming from
your Lordship, which we return for your Lordship’s more mature
consideration.”[333]
Until after the treaties of February, 1778, between the United
States and France, Great Britain resisted the exchange of naval
prisoners, confined in England, on three grounds: that it involved
the recognition of belligerent rights in the insurgents; that
France being neutral, the Colonists would be compelled either to
free captured British seamen taken in European waters, or else
to take them to America; and that since British seamen were far
more numerous than American, an exchange would tell more favorably
for the Americans than for the British.[334] Not until France had
entered into the war, did Britain take a broader and more generous
position, and begin to listen to Franklin’s overtures for an
exchange of prisoners. During 1778 the negotiations proceeded slowly
and vexatiously, and it was not until March, 1779, that the first
exchange was made. One hundred American prisoners from the Mill
prison at Plymouth were then sent to France by the British government
in the Milford cartel-ship; and in August one hundred more were
exchanged.
In October, 1779, when Captain Jones terminated his famous cruise,
he carried into the Texel, Holland, 472 prisoners; and Franklin had
high hopes that at last considerable numbers of the unfortunate
American prisoners would be released. Since the Texel was a neutral
port, complications growing out of the laws of neutrality now arose.
If Jones’s prisoners were to be exchanged for Americans, it was
decided that they must first be brought to France. Rather than risk
their recapture, Franklin agreed to permit them to be considered as
the prisoners of France and to be exchanged for an equal number of
Frenchmen imprisoned in England. In return, the French were to give
Franklin 472 English prisoners confined in French prisons, which
were to be exchanged for American prisoners. Franklin had difficulty
in securing the Englishmen from France; after England had sent over
one hundred prisoners, misunderstandings arose, and in May, 1780,
she refused to exchange Americans except for Englishmen taken by
American cruisers. One of the main objects of Jones’s famous cruise,
the releasing of American prisoners in England, seems to have partly
failed.[335] In March, 1782, Franklin considered a proposed plan for
rescuing the American prisoners in Forton prison, and bringing them
to France on smuggling vessels, but he concluded that the project
was impracticable.[336]
After France and Spain entered into the war, the American
Commissioners confined British prisoners in French and Spanish
prisons. Before the French treaties, the Commissioners had no place,
except in their own ships, to stow away their prisoners. The American
captains were therefore forced to free many captives. They often
exacted of a prisoner a pledge or parole that he would, on returning
to England, be responsible for the release of an American prisoner;
but of course the British government refused to take cognizance of
such pledges, or to listen to the claims of the Commissioners that
these released captives should be considered as returned prisoners.
Beginning with 1778, the burden upon the Commissioners for the
maintenance of English prisoners was considerable. In May, 1779,
Franklin thought it would take more than 100,000 livres to pay all
the accounts arising from expenditures in their behalf.[337] Could
satisfactory and expeditious exchanges have been effected with
England, this item of expense would have been greatly reduced. When
the Revolution came to an end, there was still a considerable number
of Americans in English prisons.
A number of alleged breaches of neutrality, said to have been made by
American armed vessels, was brought to the attention of the American
representatives at the Court of France. For example, in 1777 the
French, Spanish, and Dutch governments complained that either their
ships or their merchandise had been unlawfully captured. In 1778
the Spanish and Swedish Courts asserted that Captain Conyngham had
violated the laws of neutrals. The Dutch found fault with Captain
Jones for sending the brigantine “Berkenbosch” to America. In 1780
the Portuguese Ambassador at Paris presented Franklin with papers
which alleged that the Massachusetts state cruiser “Mars” had
illegally taken a Portuguese ship and had sent it to New England. The
American representatives at Paris regularly disposed of such cases as
the above by referring them to Congress, and to the American courts
of admiralty. In the case of the Portuguese ship, Franklin wrote to
Congress that he hoped that it would forward a speedy decision; and
that it would give orders to the American cruisers not to meddle with
neutral vessels, for this was a practice “apt to produce ill blood.”
Complaints having been made of violences done by American armed
vessels to neutral nations, the Commissioners, in November, 1777,
issued a proclamation enjoining the American commanders to obey the
laws of neutrality. In 1780, in view of the First Armed Neutrality
which had been proposed by Catherine of Russia, and which was then
being concerted by certain European nations, Franklin wrote to
Congress, asking whether it would not be proper to confine American
captures to the principle that “free ships shall make free goods,”
since it was likely that this would become the law of nations.[338]
Many miscellaneous duties, more or less naval in character,
fell to the Commissioners at Paris and to their successor, the
American Minister. In August, 1778, the Commissioners offered a few
observations on some regulations for prizes and prisoners, which
Sartine, the French Minister of Marine, had prepared with a view of
making uniform certain rules of France and the United States on these
subjects.[339] In June, 1778, Franklin issued a curious passport
in the form of a proclamation to all commanders of American armed
vessels, not to attack a certain British vessel, which was bound to
the Moravian mission on the coast of Labrador. “I do therefore hereby
[inform you] that the sloop ‘Good Intent,’ burthen about 75 tons,
Capt. Francis Mugford, carrying in the present voyage about 5000
bricks for building chimneys, with provisions and necessaries for
the missionaries and their assistants, and some ironmongery and tin
ware for the Indians—the crew consisting of the Captain, Mate, three
men, and a boy, and the passengers one man and three women—is the
vessel employed in the above service this year.”[340] Coming amid the
cruelties, resentments, and misunderstandings of war, this document,
which breathes a humane spirit and declares that the philanthropic
interests of nations are inviolable, is indeed a most welcome one. In
October, 1778, the Commissioners provided the Ambassador of Naples
at the Court of France, whose country had lately opened its ports
to American vessels, with a description of American flags. After
describing the flag of the United States, they added: “Some of the
States have vessels of war distinct from those of the United States.
For example, the vessels of war of the state of Massachusetts Bay
have sometimes a pine tree; and those of the state of South Carolina
a rattlesnake in the middle of thirteen stripes. Merchant ships have
only thirteen stripes, but the flag of the United States ordained
by Congress is the thirteen stripes and the thirteen stars above
described.”[341]
The Naval Office at Paris served as a channel for the communication
of foreign naval intelligence; it also proposed to Congress several
important naval plans. John Adams, while Commissioner, and later
while on a diplomatic mission in Holland, wrote long letters to
Congress on the armament of the foreign navies, the movements of the
British, French, and Spanish fleets, and the captures made by these
fleets. In November, 1776, Silas Deane, always fertile in schemes,
proposed to the Committee of Secret Correspondence the sending
of frigates against the Newfoundland fisheries; after destroying
these, the frigates were to sail for the Baltic and cruise after
the enemy’s ships bound for Russia. In the same letter he proposed
a second project. A number of frigates with merchantmen under
their convoy should be loaded with tobacco, rice, wheat, and other
colonial products, and should sail for Bordeaux. After unloading
their cargoes and refreshing their crews the frigates should strike
a blow on the British coast which would “alarm and weaken Great
Britain most effectually. The city of Glasgow might at any hour be
destroyed by a single frigate capable of landing two hundred men.”
After their descent on England the frigates should sail northward
and intercept the Baltic ships, or else return to France and wait for
a good opportunity to strike a second blow. Ships engaging in such
expeditions could obtain any number of recruits in France. By issuing
commissions, individuals would “join you in the adventure under
your flag, with stout frigates, several of which are now building
absolutely with the design, viz., the hopes of getting into the
service of the United States of North America.”[342] Deane’s letters
at this time are somewhat extravagant, nor are they always based on
an accurate knowledge of the facts. “Would it not be well,” he asks,
“to purchase at Leghorn five or six stout Frigates, which might at
once transport some companies of Swiss and a quantity of stores and
the whole be defended by the Swiss soldiers on their passage?”[343]
In May, 1777, the recommendations made by Deane in November, 1776,
were in substance repeated by the Commissioners at Paris to the
Committee of Foreign Affairs. These new recommendations were in
all probability drafted by Deane. The Commissioners thought that a
blow might be struck on the coast of England which would “alarm and
shake Great Britain, and its credit, to the center.” The burning and
plundering of Liverpool or Glasgow would do more essential service to
the Colonies than a million of treasure and blood spent in America.
It would raise our reputation to the highest pitch, and lessen in the
same degree that of our enemy. The Commissioners were confident that
the plan was practicable, and could be carried out with very little
danger. They also recommended the sending of two or three Continental
frigates with some small cruisers into the German ocean, where,
about the middle of August, they might seize the greater part of the
enemy’s Baltic and northern trade. One frigate, they said, would
be sufficient to destroy the “Greenland whale fishery, or take the
Hudson Bay ships returning.”[344]
In the fall of 1778 the Commissioners called the attention of both
the Committee of Foreign Affairs and the French Minister of Marine
to the ease with which a single frigate or privateer of twenty or
twenty-four guns could capture the valuable whale fishery which the
English maintained off the coast of Brazil. The seventeen vessels
employed in this industry were manned and officered almost entirely
by Americans belonging to Nantucket and Cape Cod. These men had been
captured by Great Britain, and having been given their choice of
entering the British naval service or the whale fishing industry,
had chosen the latter. By their recapture four hundred and fifty of
the best kind of American seamen would be added to the Continental
service, and moreover the cargoes of oil which would be taken were
very valuable.[345]
In December, 1777, the Committee of Foreign Affairs proposed to the
Commissioners at Paris the most extensive naval expedition planned
for the Continental fleet during the Revolution. The plan was to
be carried out by two or three of the frigates which the Marine
Committee were sending to France. These, being well manned, were
early in February, 1778, to be despatched to the French island of
Mauritius in the Indian ocean, where they should refit and replenish
their stores. The frigates should next proceed to the Coromandel
Coast, a twenty days’ sail from Mauritius. Here they should intercept
the enemy’s China ships, and also distress the internal trade of
India. The prizes could be sold in Mauritius and the proceeds sent to
Paris by bills of exchange. Gorée was recommended as a better port
of call than the Cape of Good Hope, where there was danger to be
apprehended from British vessels. In the same letter the Committee
wrote that “another beneficial attempt may be conducted along the
coasts of Africa. The French and Dutch settlements, and perhaps the
Portuguese, will purchase the prizes, and give bills on Europe.”[346]
No reply was made by the Commissioners relative to the proposed East
Indian expedition until in July, 1778, when Arthur Lee wrote to the
Committee of Foreign Affairs that the Commissioners considered the
plan “impracticable at the present.” “Better order,” he said, “must
be established in our marine, and the ships’ companies better sorted,
before it will be safe to attempt enterprises at such a distance, and
which require a certain extent of ideas in the captain and entire
obedience in the crew.”[347] One must agree with Lee’s conclusion,
although more weighty objections to the complicated plan of the
Committee might be adduced.
FOOTNOTES:
[314] For convenience the term “Naval Office” will be used in this
chapter. It will be understood of course that there existed no “Naval
Office” apart from the Office of the American representatives at
Paris, in whom were vested diplomatic, naval, and commercial duties.
[315] Ingraham, Papers relative to Silas Deane, 67.
[316] Wharton’s Diplomatic Correspondence and Ford’s Letters of
William Lee are the best sources for the work of these agents.
[317] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence II, 595, Adams to Commercial
Committee, May 24, 1778.
[318] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence II, 191, 200, Deane to
Committee of Secret Correspondence, November 6, November 28, 1776.
[319] Collections of New York Historical Society, Deane Papers, II,
122; Journals of Continental Congress, May 9, 1778.
[320] Ingraham, Papers relative to Silas Deane, 141-49.
[321] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 802-03; IV, 26, 33;
Hale’s Franklin in France, I, chapter XVI, Privateers from Dunkirk.
[322] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence III, 731.
[323] Journals of Continental Congress, October 3, 1776; Wharton,
Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 177.
[324] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 284.
[325] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 284-85.
[326] Ibid., 433, Commissioners to Committee of Foreign Affairs,
November 30, 1777.
[327] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, V, 512-13.
[328] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 189, 193, Franklin to
Committee of Foreign Affairs, May 26, 1779.
[329] Collections of New York Historical Society, Deane Papers, IV,
159.
[330] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 801-03, 880-81;
Bigelow’s Franklin, VII, 54-55, 58-59.
[331] Pennsylvania Packet, May-June, 1782. Another list will be found
in New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1865, 74,
136, 209.
[332] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, V, 326-27.
[333] Hale’s Franklin in France, I, Chapter XI, American Prisoners,
prints many original letters.
[334] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 724.
[335] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 535, 608, 681-82,
745-46.
[336] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, V, 276.
[337] Ibid., III, 189.
[338] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 425, 435, 784, 827; IV,
24, 180; Stevens’s Facsimiles, 1967, 1969; Bigelow’s Franklin, VII,
308; C. H. Lincoln, Calendar of John Paul Jones Manuscripts, 163.
[339] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 682-83, 684-87.
[340] Hale’s Franklin in France, I, 245. Franklin issued a similar
proclamation in behalf of the celebrated navigator, Captain
Cook.—Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 75.
[341] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 759-60.
[342] Collections of New York Historical Society, Deane Papers, I,
339-40. The letter of Deane here published, it is believed, was
written to the Committee of Secret Correspondence, and not to the
Secret Committee as given.
[343] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 199. Deane to Committee
of Secret Correspondence, November 28, 1776.
[344] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 324-27.
[345] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 818-19, 832-33.
[346] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 440-41.
[347] Ibid., 673-74.
CHAPTER X
NAVAL DUTIES OF AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
(_Continued_)
In 1777 the work of the Naval Office at Paris was greater and more
varied than during any other year. Naval vessels were both built
and purchased. Continental ships, and merchantmen chartered from
the French, were laden for America with muskets, cannon, powder,
cordage, duck, tents, blankets, and clothing. The naval prisoners in
England and the violations of neutral rights committed by Continental
ships and by privateers demanded much attention. In the spring
the Continental brig “Lexington,” and in the fall the “Raleigh,”
“Alfred,” and “Independence,” arrived in France. The “Reprisal,” 16,
“Lexington,” 14, “Dolphin,” 10, “Surprise,” 10, and “Revenge,” 14,
were fitted and refitted in French ports and sent cruising off the
British coasts; and the prizes of these vessels were sold in France.
The “Dolphin,” “Surprise,” and “Revenge” were officered and manned
in France. The task of conducting all these naval activities in a
neutral country the Commissioners found to be a most delicate one.
Among the earlier undertakings of the American representatives at
Paris were their attempts to obtain the freedom of French ports for
American vessels. Nor was their work of this sort confined wholly
to the French Court, for in the spring of 1777 Arthur Lee sought at
Madrid permission for American vessels to sell their prizes and to
refit in Spanish ports; and later in the year he went on a similar
errand to Berlin. Both the Spanish and Prussian Courts refused his
requests.[348] Prizes were, however, without difficulty secretly
disposed of in Spain.
As early as August, 1776, Deane wrote from Paris that he was
“not without hopes of obtaining liberty for the armed vessels of
the United Colonies, to dispose of their prizes in the ports of
this Kingdom, and also for arming and fitting out vessels of war
directly from hence.”[349] When Franklin arrived in France, early
in December, 1776, he carried instructions for the Commissioners to
apply immediately to the Court of France for the protection of its
ports to American ships of war, privateers, and prizes. If this
favor were granted, he was to ask for permission to sell American
prizes and their cargoes in French ports. In case both requests met
with favorable responses, the Committee of Secret Correspondence
would obtain the consent of Congress to empower the Commissioners
to appoint a judge of admiralty in France; this judge would try all
American prize cases, arising in the ports of France, in accordance
with the rules and regulations of Congress. Pending the obtaining of
the consent of Congress, the Commissioners were authorized to consult
with the French Ministry whether it would permit the erection of
American admiralty courts in France and the French West Indies.[350]
Of course France could not grant such requests as these if she wished
to remain at peace with England. During 1776 the Americans generally
overestimated the friendliness of France. They either failed to see
that the laws of neutrality must set quite definite limits to her
overt favors, or else they thought her eager for an excuse to go to
war with Great Britain. The attitude of France towards permitting
American vessels of war and their prizes the freedom of French ports
was disclosed sooner than the Commissioners had reason to expect.
It is remembered that the “Reprisal” arrived in France with Franklin
on board early in December, 1776. She was the first Continental
vessel to reach European waters. Not far from the French coast she
captured two small British brigantines, and carried them into Nantes.
These were the first American prizes to enter French ports. It may
be guessed that the captains of the two prizes were not long in
communicating with Lord Stormont, the British Ambassador at Paris,
and that Lord Stormont was not long in communicating with the French
government. On December 17 he held a conference with Vergennes,
the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, to whom he declared that
the prizes were unlawfully captured, since the “Reprisal” had no
commission from a sovereign power as a letter of marque; that he
expected that the prizes would be immediately restored to their
owners; and that the permitting of their sale would be a violation
of the treaty of Utrecht between Great Britain and France. Though
conciliatory, Vergennes’s reply was not altogether satisfactory to
the British Ambassador, who records that the French Minister ended
“with expressions which seemed to shew an Intention of taking some
Middle Way, and leaving the Point undetermined.”[351]
During 1777 Lord Stormont held many similar conferences with
Vergennes in which the naval liberties permitted the Americans in
French ports were the subject of discussion. Vergennes set forth the
position of his government in a way that was reasonably acceptable to
England. He declared that its purpose was to prevent every violation
of its treaties and of the law of nations. He gave orders that the
prizes captured by the Americans should not be sold in French ports.
At different times he commanded the American vessels of war to sail
within twenty-four hours from French harbors. When the British wrath
flamed out at some overt act of the Americans, Vergennes appeased it
by vigorous and decisive acts of repression, aimed at the American
captains and agents. A past master in soft and plausible answers,
he excused flagrant violations of British rights by explaining that
every government had some tempestuous spirits which were hard to
control, and that the “avidity of gain” in merchants could not always
be restrained.
The British government could not object to the public acts of the
French government, or to the reception which it gave to the American
Commissioners, whom it received “privately with all civility,” but
avoided an open reception, as it was “cautious of giving umbrage
to England.” As regards its observance of the treaty of Utrecht,
and its inability to grant the freedom of its ports to American
vessels and their prizes, its declarations to the Commissioners
were in line with those which it made to Lord Stormont. On the
other hand, the Commissioners were given to understand, through
secret and informal channels, that the Colonies had the sympathy of
the French government; that so far as was consistent with French
treaties, they might expect favors and indulgences; that the ports
of France were open to American ships “as friends;” that ways of
disposing of American prizes which would not be offensive to England
might be found; and that other irregularities would be permitted
unnoticed.[352] The Commissioners pressed their favors as far as they
could safely go; indeed, so far, that at one time they endangered the
continuance of their friendly relations with the French Court.
The two prizes which the “Reprisal” carried into Nantes in December,
1776, were taken into the offing of that port and privately sold.
The “Reprisal” was quietly refitted, and in February, 1777, she made
a cruise off the coast of Spain and returned to L’Orient with the
Falmouth packet and four other English vessels. Lord Stormont made
vigorous remonstrances. The French government at once ordered the
“Reprisal” and her prizes to put to sea within twenty-four hours.
Nothing of this sort was done. The “Reprisal” remained in port, on
the ground that she had sprung a leak; and her prizes were secretly
sold for one-seventh of their value to French merchants, who, for the
sake of large profits, eagerly overlooked the irregularity of the
transaction.[353] Confident of the accuracy of the cues they were
receiving, the Commissioners now fitted out, manned, and officered at
Dunkirk the “Surprise,” Captain Gustavus Conyngham, and early in May,
1777, sent her cruising. Within a few days after his leaving Dunkirk,
Conyngham returned with the Harwich packet, and one other prize. The
storm raised by the British at so open and undoubted a violation of
their rights could be pacified only by more rigorous measures. The
French government therefore imprisoned Captain Conyngham and his
crew, and returned his prizes to their owners.[354]
Not at all disconcerted, the Commissioners fitted out a fleet,
consisting of the “Reprisal,” “Lexington,” and “Dolphin,” to
intercept the Irish linen ships. Captain Wickes was placed at its
head as commodore, and was instructed not to return to France unless
he found it absolutely necessary. Wickes got to sea during the first
of June. Missing the linen ships, he sailed quite around Ireland,
and captured or destroyed seventeen or eighteen sail of vessels;
he “most effectually alarmed England, prevented the great fair at
Chester, occasioned insurance to rise, and even deterred the English
merchants from shipping goods in English bottoms at any rate, so that
in a few weeks forty sail of French ships were loading in the Thames,
on freight, an instance never before known.”[355] The three vessels
returned to French ports about July 1.
Obviously there was a limit to the forbearance of the English
government, and it made it plain that this limit had been reached.
Lord Stormont was instructed to tell the French government that,
however desirous the British king might be to maintain peace, he
would not submit “to such strong and public instances of support and
protection shewn to the Rebels by a Nation that at the same time
professes in the strongest terms its Desire to maintain the present
Harmony subsisting between the two Crowns. The shelter given to the
armed Vessels of the Rebels, the facility they have of disposing of
their Prizes by the connivance of Government, and the conveniences
allowed them to refit, are such irrefragable proofs of support,
that scarcely more could be done if there was an avowed Alliance
between France and them, and We were in a state of War with that
Kingdom.”[356]
This last cruise of Wickes also threatened to endanger the
friendliness of the French Court and the Commissioners. Vergennes
wrote to them with some spirit, and insinuated that they had broken
their promises. “After such repeated advertisements,” he said, “the
motives of which you have been informed of, we had no reason to
expect, gentlemen, that the said Sieur Wickes would prosecute his
cruising in the European seas, and we could not be otherwise than
greatly surprised that, after having associated the privateers the
Lexington and the Dolphin to infest the English coast, they should
all three of them come for refuge into our ports. You are too well
informed, gentlemen, and too penetrating, not to see how this conduct
affects the dignity of the king, my master, at the same time it
offends the neutrality which his majesty professes.”
In their reply the Commissioners exhibited some knowledge of the
pleasing phrases of diplomacy. They said that they were “very
sensible of the protection afforded to us and to our commerce since
our residence in this kingdom, agreeable to the goodness of the
king’s gracious intentions and to the law of nations, and it gives
us real and great concern when any vessels of war appertaining to
America, either through ignorance or inattention, do anything that
may offend his majesty in the smallest degree.” They tried to shift
the blame of their captains’ return to French ports to the British
men of war that had chased the American vessels into safe retreats.
“We had,” they continued, “some days before we were honored by your
excellency’s letter, dispatched by an express the most positive
orders to them to depart directly to America, which they are
accordingly preparing to do.” There can be no doubt about the honesty
of these orders, for it was plain to the Commissioners that the
French government was not disposed to forgive further infringements
of neutral rights. By express orders of the French king the fleet of
Wickes was sequestered until it gave security that it should return
directly to America.[357]
Meantime the Commissioners had obtained the release of Conyngham and
his crew. He was now placed in command of the “Revenge;” and in July,
eluding the British, he sailed from Dunkirk, ostensibly for America.
He first cruised along the eastern coast of England, into the North
Sea and the region of the Baltic, then back through the straits of
Dover and into the Irish Channel, and finally into the Bay of Biscay,
anchoring at Ferrol, Spain, about the first of October. The terror
of his name, which his recklessness and daring greatly increased,
spread great alarm among the inhabitants of the British Isles. He
did not return again to France with the “Revenge.” This fact made
his cruise less annoying to the Commissioners, than the last cruise
of Wickes. Hodge, the agent of the Commissioners, who had given
bond to the French admiralty that the “Revenge” would not engage in
operations against the British, was arrested and thrown into the
Bastile; and Vergennes wrote a most severe letter, to be shown to the
Commissioners. Presently, when the wrath of the British had abated,
Hodge was released on the representation of the Commissioners that
he was a person of character, and that they could not “conceive him
capable of any willful offence against the laws of this nation.”[358]
About the middle of September the “Reprisal” and the “Lexington”
sailed for America; the “Reprisal” foundered on the Grand Banks
of Newfoundland, losing all on board except the cook; and the
“Lexington” was taken by the British off Ushant. With the departure
of these vessels the movements of the Continental fleet for 1777 in
European waters came to an end; as did also the nice task of the
Commissioners of conducting a naval war from a neutral country as a
base, without losing the friendship of that country, or involving
it in war. Had not hostilities broken out in 1778 between France
and England by reason of other causes, a repetition of the naval
operations of 1777, if permitted by the French, would very likely
have brought them on.
During 1778 two cruises were made in European waters, one by Captain
Tucker, and the other by Captain Jones. On April 1, 1778, the frigate
“Boston,” Captain Samuel Tucker, arrived at Bordeaux with John Adams,
the new Commissioner who was to succeed Silas Deane, as a passenger.
After refitting, Tucker made a short cruise in which he captured
four prizes. In August the “Boston,” in company with the frigate
“Providence,” and the ship “Ranger,” sailed for America. Some months
previous the “Ranger,” when under the command of Captain Jones, had
made an important cruise. Jones arrived in this vessel in France on
December 2, 1777. He expected to receive command of a frigate or a
ship of the line; but in this he was disappointed. On January 18,
1778, the Commissioners wrote to him that they could not procure such
a ship as he expected; and that they advised him, “after equipping
the ‘Ranger,’ in the best manner for the cruise you propose,” to
proceed “with her in the manner you shall judge best for distressing
the enemies of the United States, by sea or otherwise, consistent
with the laws of war and the terms of your commission.”[359]
From these orders it may be seen that Jones had in mind a descent on
the British coast. On April 10, 1778, he sailed for the Irish sea.
After capturing or destroying four vessels, he made an unsuccessful
attempt to burn the shipping at Whitehaven in Cumberland. He next
tried to take prisoner the Earl of Selkirk from his summer home at
St. Mary’s Isle, off the southwest coast of Scotland, but failed
to find him. These movements ashore naturally struck terror to the
inhabitants of the British Isles. Jones now crossed to Ireland,
and in the neighborhood of Belfast attacked the British naval
ship “Drake,” 20, Commander George Burdon. After an engagement of
seventy-four minutes, during which the “Ranger” was “skillfully
handled and well-fought,” the “Drake” struck her colors. Jones
arrived in Brest with his prize on May 10.[360] Many plans and
suggestions were now made by both the Commissioners and the French
government to supply Jones with some large ship from the French navy,
or to give him the command of a small fleet, but they all miscarried.
The ambitious and energetic American captain, chafing under his
enforced idleness, was not to make another cruise until fifteen
months had elapsed.
During 1779 and 1780 the Naval office at Paris was chiefly concerned
with the movements, conduct, and achievements of two captains in
the Continental navy, John Paul Jones and Peter Landais. Never
have the fortunes of war thrown into close association two men of
more striking contrasts. Jones was ardent, hopeful, and magnetic;
Landais sullen, quarrelsome, and repellent. Jones was a master of
men; from unpromising materials, swept together by the winds and
waves of diverse fortunes, he made most effective crews. Landais
was seldom on good terms with his officers or seamen, some of whom
were always dissatisfied and mutinous. Called to play their parts on
the same theater of war, the Scotchman achieved signal success and
distinction, and won the plaudits of the French king, of Congress,
and of his countrymen; while to the Frenchman fell the ill-will of
his own government, the hatred of Americans, and, in his dismissal
from the navy of the United States, dishonor and professional
disgrace.
In the spring of 1779 Franklin—now American minister at the Court of
France—the French government, and Lafayette planned an expedition
against the coast of England, which had in view especially the
striking of some of the larger English towns. Lafayette was to
command the French troops which were to be lent for the expedition,
and Jones, to whom the French government had, in February, given the
command of the “Bon Homme Richard,” formerly the “Duras,” an old East
Indiaman, was to command the sea forces. The “Alliance,” Captain
Landais, which vessel had recently arrived in France from America,
was to be a part of Jones’s fleet. This plan miscarried.
It was not until August 13 that Jones finally got to sea with a
fleet consisting of five naval vessels and two privateers. The two
chief vessels of the little fleet were the “Bon Homme Richard,” 42,
Captain Jones, and the “Alliance,” 36, Captain Landais. These two
officers had of course permanent commissions in the Continental
navy; the three French officers in command of naval vessels were
given temporary commissions in the Continental navy. The expense of
the cruise was borne by the French government; and the fitting out
of the fleet was superintended by Chaumont, the joint agent of the
French government and the American minister.[361] The destination of
the fleet was determined by the French government; and the orders
of Jones, the commodore of the fleet, were prepared by the French
Minister of Marine, translated and signed by Franklin, and sent to
Jones by Chaumont. The fleet sailed under the American flag. Its
principal object was the intercepting of the Baltic fleet of the
enemy.
The details of this memorable cruise are familiar to the reader,
and need not be repeated here. The fleet was scarcely at sea before
Landais became insubordinate, asserted his independence of Jones,
and left and rejoined his commodore when and where he chose. Sailing
first along the west coast of Ireland and then around Scotland, Jones
reached the east coast of Yorkshire, on September 23. He had by this
time taken seventeen ships, and had made an unsuccessful attempt
to reach Leith and Edinburgh, and lay them under contribution.
Off Flamborough Head Jones’s fleet, which was now reduced to the
“Bon Homme Richard,” “Alliance,” and “Pallas,” fell in with the
Baltic trade of forty-one sail and convoyed by His Majesty’s
ships, “Serapis,” 44, Captain Richard Pearson, and “Countess of
Scarborough,” 20, Commander Thomas Piercy. There now ensued an
engagement between the “Bon Homme Richard” and the “Serapis,” which
lasted more than three hours. It was one of the fiercest fights
recorded in the annals of naval warfare. For the greater part of
the engagement the two vessels were lashed together, stem to stern,
starboard to starboard, and with the muzzles of their guns touching.
Both ships were set on fire in various places, and the “scene was
dreadful beyond the reach of language,” to use Jones’s phrasing.
The “Bon Homme Richard” won the fight only through the brilliant
daring, the remarkable naval skill, and the intelligence in action
of her commander. She was so badly injured that she sank the second
day after the fight; her own crew were transferred to the “Serapis.”
The loss to the “Bon Homme Richard” was 116 men; to the “Serapis,”
129. During the fight of the “Bon Homme Richard” and the “Serapis,”
the “Pallas,” Captain Cottineau, and the “Countess of Scarborough,”
Commander Piercy, engaged each other, with the result that the
British ship was compelled to surrender. The “Alliance” took little
or no part in the contest, as her commander was sulking throughout
the engagement. The two prizes, the “Alliance,” and the “Pallas”
arrived at the Texel in Holland on October 3, 1779.[362]
A naval discord now arose, which tried the patience and temper of
Franklin. No sooner did Jones and Landais reach the Texel, than each
wrote to Franklin making charges against the other. Jones accused
Landais of gross insubordination and misbehavior and specifically
charged him with intentionally firing into the “Bon Homme Richard”
and killing a “number of our men and mortally wounding a good
officer.” The French government, which was inclined to attribute
the loss of the “Bon Homme Richard” and so many of her crew to the
conduct of Landais, took a hand in the dispute, and asked Franklin
to call Landais to account at Paris. In cases of this sort the Naval
Office had little authority or means to effect discipline in the
navy. A sufficient number of commissioned officers could not be
assembled in France to hold a court-martial; and if they could, it
was doubtful whether the Naval Office had the power to order such
a court. Their inability to hold courts-martial had been regretted
more than once by the American Commissioners. Landais came to
Paris, and Franklin investigated the case before friends of the two
disputants; but satisfactory evidence and witnesses could not be
obtained to prove or disprove the charges, so Franklin did the only
thing possible, by referring the dispute to Congress, and a properly
constituted court-martial in America. Franklin thought his inquiry
had one good effect, the preventing of a duel in Holland between the
two officers.[363]
On the coming of Landais to Paris, Franklin placed Jones in command
of the “Alliance.” After cruising through the English Channel to
Spain, Jones, in February, 1780, brought his vessel into L’Orient.
Acting under Franklin’s orders, Jones now refitted his vessel with
the purpose of returning to America with a cargo of supplies. In
the spring of 1780 Landais began to beseech Franklin to restore him
to the command of the “Alliance,” and he soon raised the question
whether the American minister at Paris had the power to remove him
from the command of a vessel to which Congress had appointed him. His
request was refused by Franklin in bald and vigorous terms. “I think
you,” Franklin wrote, “so imprudent, so litigious, and quarrelsome
a man, even with your best friends, that peace and good order, and
consequently the quiet and regular subordination so necessary to
success, are, where you preside, impossible.”[364] Later he charged
Landais “not to meddle with the ‘Alliance’ or create any disturbance
on board her, as you will answer the contrary at your peril.”[365]
About the first of June Jones left his vessel, and came up to Paris
to hasten the sale of his prizes. Landais now appeared at L’Orient,
raised a mutiny on board the “Alliance,” and, acting on Arthur Lee’s
advice, took charge of her. Early in July, without taking the stores
which had been assigned to his ship, Landais sailed for America. It
was on this passage that he developed a strangeness, a madness, some
say, that incapacitated him for his command. He was removed, and
the “Alliance” was sailed into Boston in charge of her lieutenant.
Landais was now tried by a court-martial and dismissed from the naval
service.
Meantime Jones and Franklin had succeeded in obtaining from the
French government the loan of the “Ariel.” Having loaded her
with supplies, Jones sailed for America on October 7, 1780; but,
encountering a storm which dismasted his vessel, he was compelled to
return to port. On December 18 he again put to sea; and in February,
1781, he reached Philadelphia.
With the departure of Jones, the European waters, for the first time
in four years, were clear of the armed vessels of the Continental
fleet. The venerable Franklin, vexed with the discords and details
of naval affairs, must have drawn a sigh of relief when the last
Continental vessel and captain had withdrawn from France. The most
disagreeable of his duties as “Admiral,” to use John Adams’s word
in this connection, now came to an end. Concerning his vexations,
Franklin wrote to one of his agents in the summer of 1780: “I
have been too long in hot water, plagued almost to death with the
passions, vagaries, and ill humours, and madnesses of other people.
I must have a little repose.”[366] He had now for some time been
writing to Congress, asking to be relieved of his naval duties. An
example of his requests may be extracted from a letter of March
4, 1780, to the President of Congress: “As vessels of war under
my care create me a vast deal of business (of a kind, too, that I
am unexperienced in), I must repeat my earnest request that some
person of skill in such affairs may be appointed, in the character
of consul, to take charge of them. I imagine that much would by
that means be saved in the expense of their various refittings and
supplies, which to me appears enormous.”[367]
From the beginning of 1781 until the close of the Revolution the
duties of the Naval Office at Paris were comparatively light. Few
armed vessels were sent from America to France; and those that
were, remained only long enough to refit, load with supplies, and
receive letters and despatches for America. Over such ships Franklin
exercised little or no control. The Agent of Marine, not wishing his
vessels to slip from his grasp when within the reach of orders from
Paris, sometimes directed his captains who were about to sail for
France to return home on a specified date. In May, 1782, he wrote
disapprovingly to Congress concerning the “delays and exorbitant
expenses which have accrued from the detention of public vessels
in Europe.”[368] Acting under the direct orders of Morris, Captain
Barry, in the “Alliance,” in February, 1782, left L’Orient and
cruised without success for seventeen days. This was the last cruise
in European waters which was made by a Continental vessel during the
Revolution.
On July 10, 1781, Congress gave Thomas Barclay a commission as
vice-consul to France in the place of William Palfrey, who had, in
November, 1780, been appointed consul to France, and had gone down
with the vessel on which he took passage.[369] In addition to his
strictly consular duties, Barclay was authorized to “assist in
directing our Naval affairs.”[370] When Barclay entered upon his
duties in France, our naval business was narrowing to the settling
of accounts. He was in time, however, to represent his country in
the trial and sale of a few prizes, to assist in the shipping of
some supplies, and to sell the Continental ship, “Duc de Lauzun.”
In November, 1782, Congress appointed Barclay a commissioner for
settling the Revolutionary accounts of the United States in Europe;
and in December Morris gave him his instructions.[371] Barclay was
directed to inquire into the accounts of the agents for fitting out
armed vessels in Europe, and to make a settlement with the various
prize agents into whose hands prizes or moneys derived from their
sale had come. Barclay’s duties, both as consul and as commissioner,
came to an end in the fall of 1785, when he was appointed to
negotiate a treaty with Morocco.
Some of the duties of Barclay as commissioner for settling accounts
were in December, 1783, vested in John Paul Jones. In accordance
with a resolution of Congress, Franklin appointed Jones agent of
the United States to solicit the payment of prize money, “in whose
hands soever the money may be detained,” arising from prizes captured
by vessels under Jones’s command in European waters.[372] Jones was
engaged in this work during 1784 and 1785. Under the sanction of
Thomas Jefferson, the American Minister at Paris, Jones in 1786 set
out for Copenhagen, to settle a dispute with the Danish Court over
three of his prizes. These ships had been captured, in 1779, by the
fleet under his command, and had been sent into Bergen, Norway. The
Danish government had restored them to the British. Jones’s journey
was interrupted and he did not reach Copenhagen until 1788. The
Danish government now transferred the settlement of the disputed
claims to Paris, pleading that Jones had not sufficient authority
to treat. By June, Jones had left Copenhagen, had accepted the
commission of Vice-Admiral in the Russian navy, and was writing
from his flagship “Wolodimer” to his friend Jefferson at Paris. The
Revolutionary accounts in Europe possessed the usual vitality, not to
say immortality, of government claims. Certain Revolutionary claims
of South Carolina, growing out of expenses which that state incurred
in Europe in connection with the ship “Indian,” are now pending
before the government at Washington.
In the West Indies the chief naval station for the Continental
vessels was St. Pierre, Martinique. Bound on commercial errands,
our vessels occasionally visited St. Eustatius, until its capture
by the British in February, 1781; Cape Francois, Hispaniola; and in
the late years of the war, Havana. The United States had commercial
agents at these three ports. But at Martinique our vessels were
refitted, repaired, and provisioned whenever convenience suggested,
or stress of weather compelled, the seeking of a friendly harbor in
this part of the Atlantic. In June, 1776, William Bingham, who had
been the secretary of the Committee of Secret Correspondence, went to
Martinique as the commercial agent of Congress; and in March, 1780,
he was succeeded by Parsons, Alston and Company.
The commercial agent at Martinique did a varied and lively business.
He was employed in shipping supplies, obtaining convoys for his
merchantmen, refitting privateers, and now and then Continental
vessels, disposing of prizes, and forwarding to Congress naval
intelligence concerning the West Indies and Europe. Congress at times
sent despatches and supplies to France by the way of Martinique; and
the American representatives and commercial agents in France, now and
then, communicated with the United States through the same island.
In October, 1777, Bingham wrote to Congress that, if France should
declare war against Great Britain, many prizes would naturally be
sent into Martinique, and that he wished to be directed about proper
forms and methods for trying and selling them.[373] In December
American prizes and privateers were being publicly received into
the ports of Martinique, and Bingham was shipping arms to America
on board American vessels under the convoy of a frigate which he
had hired for that purpose. In January, 1778, the permitting of
these favors was causing spirited letters between the “General” of
Martinique and the Governor of the British island of Antigua.[374]
During 1779 three Continental vessels, the “Deane,” “General Gates,”
and “Confederacy,” put into Martinique to refit, repair, and obtain
provisions. The expense to which Bingham’s empty treasury was
subjected caused him to complain to Congress. The only Continental
armed vessel purchased at Martinique was the little schooner
“Fame,” 7 guns. The commercial agent made this purchase on his own
responsibility in February, 1781, in order to carry to Philadelphia
the news of the capture of St. Eustatius by the British. But
unfortunately, the “Fame” was forced to bequeath her errand to a
better-fated conveyance, as the British carried her into Antigua.[375]
Our naval affairs on the Mississippi during the Revolution, although
conducted on a small scale, are not devoid of interest; nor do
they entirely escape the glamour of romance which seems to touch
everything connected with the early history of this region. Oliver
Pollock, originally a Pennsylvanian, and a man of ability, integrity,
and patriotism, who freely spent his private fortune for his country,
was the commercial agent at New Orleans during the Revolution, and
to him fell sundry naval duties. Pollock was responsible to the
Commercial Committee, the third committee of Congress that was
simultaneously purchasing and arming vessels. He was intelligently
and heartily assisted in his work at New Orleans by the Governor of
Louisiana, Galvez, “that worthy Nobleman,” as Pollock called him, who
“gave me the delightful assurance that he would go every possible
length for the interest of Congress.”[376] It is refreshing to
find for once American and Spanish officials acting in concert and
inspiring mutual confidence and affection. Early in 1777, immediately
after Galvez became governor, he, with slight limitations, opened
the port of New Orleans to American vessels of war and their prizes.
Galvez’s favors to Americans called down upon him the threats of the
British at Pensacola to have his conduct brought to the attention of
the Court at Madrid.
Pollock received from Congress blank commissions both for officers in
the Continental navy and for privateers. One of the privateers which
he commissioned, the “Reprisal,” Captain Calvert, sent into a safe
port, in April, 1778, a prize whose cargo consisted of flour, sugar,
coffee, and forty-eight slaves.[377] In March, 1778, Captain Willing
and a small party of men arrived in New Orleans from Pennsylvania,
having come by the way of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. They
captured several prizes on the Mississippi, which were sold in New
Orleans to the value of $37,500. One of these, the “Rebecca,” Pollock
bought for Congress on his own responsibility. He obtained permission
from Galvez to fit out his ship in a warlike manner; and he decided
upon an armament, consisting of “16 six pounders upon one Deck, 2
Bow and 2 Stern Chacers, 8 four pounders upon her quarter Deck,
with Swivels, Cohorns, &c.”[378] He intended to enlist one hundred
and fifty men and send his ship against His Majesty’s sloop of war
“Sylph,” which was defending Manchac on Lake Pontchartrain. Pollock
planned to obtain most of his armament from Havana, but the Spanish
authorities refused to permit its shipment even after Galvez had
written to the Cuban government.[379]
By July, 1779, Pollock had succeeded in obtaining and mounting
twenty-four guns on the decks of his ship, which he had now
christened the “Morris” in honor of his well-known friend at
Philadelphia. He had appointed a full quota of officers; and he had
engaged seventy-six men, with “English deserters arriving daily”
to swell the complement. The captain of the “Morris” was William
Pickles, a man found to be “capable and steady to our Cause.” Pollock
had now for some time been waiting for orders for his vessel from
Philadelphia; and tired of delay he was on the point of sending the
“Morris” cruising, when a severe hurricane swept over New Orleans
doing great damage to the town and its shipping. The “Morris” was
lost, and eleven of her crew were drowned; the rest were rescued nine
miles below the city clinging to the wreckage of their vessel.
Governor Galvez’s heart was touched by the loss of the Americans.
He now “spared” Pollock an armed schooner, which was soon fitted
out, and by September Pickles was cruising on Lake Pontchartrain. On
September 10 Pickles had a short, but hot, dispute with the British
armed sloop “West Florida,” which was forced to surrender, although
it lost but four men to Pickles’s eight. Pollock now fitted out the
“West Florida,” and sent her cruising on the Lake. On September 21
Pickles captured a small British settlement on the north side of Lake
Pontchartrain. He made prisoners of all the inhabitants who refused
to swear allegiance to the United States. This capitulation, Pollock
wrote to Congress, gave them an undoubted right to that part of the
colony of West Florida which lay along Lake Pontchartrain; and he
conceived, in language that sounds familiarly like that of later
expansionists, that the capitulation was “a proper Ground on which to
claim (at any convenient period) the Sovereignty of the Soil and the
Allegiance of the Inhabitants.”[380]
In October, 1779, the “West Florida” cruised on the Lake at the
request of Galvez for the protection of trade. Letters from
Philadelphia now made it evident to Pollock that Congress wished the
naval force on the Mississippi to proceed to that town. He therefore
on January 20, 1780, gave Pickles orders to sail for Philadelphia
after taking on a cargo of tafia and sugar at Havana; but he directed
Pickles, before entering on this detail, to join the fleet of Galvez
and to assist in the reduction of Mobile and Pensacola.[381] This
was an undertaking which Pollock had long assigned to an American
fleet and army; and since 1777 he had urged it most audaciously upon
Congress. After aiding in the capture of Mobile and taking a small
prize which she sent into that town, the “West Florida” proceeded
to Philadelphia, where she arrived about the first of June, 1780.
Since it appeared to a committee of Congress that the “West Florida”
was not fit for a cruiser, she was sold, and her crew was assigned
to other Continental vessels.[382] Captain Pickles was placed in
command of the “Mercury” packet and detailed to take Henry Laurens
to Amsterdam. Here ends the story of the Revolutionary navy on the
Mississippi.
FOOTNOTES:
[348] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 296-97, 355-58, 370.
[349] Ibid., 119-20, Deane to Committee of Secret Correspondence,
August 18, 1776.
[350] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 178-79.
[351] Stevens’s Facsimiles, 1392, 1-2, Lord Stormont to Lord
Weymouth, December 18, 1776.
[352] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 283-84, 364, 379.
[353] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 379-80; Stevens’s
Facsimiles, 1445, 1536, 1568.
[354] Stevens’s Facsimiles, 1529, Lord Stormont to Lord Weymouth, May
8, 1777.
[355] Stevens’s Facsimiles, 703, 1539; Wharton, Diplomatic
Correspondence, II, 379-80, Deane to Robert Morris, August 23, 1777.
[356] Stevens’s Facsimiles, 1562, Lord Weymouth to Lord Stormont,
July 4, 1777.
[357] Stevens’s Facsimiles, 1677; Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence,
II, 364-66, Vergennes to Commissioners at Paris, July 16, 1777, and
Franklin and Deane to Vergennes, July 17, 1777.
[358] C. H. Jones, Captain Gustavus Conyngham, 15-17; Outlook
for January 3, 1903, 71-83, James Barnes, Tragedy of the Lost
Commission; Hale’s Franklin in France, I, 139; Wharton, Diplomatic
Correspondence, II, 375, 377, 406.
[359] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, II, 471-72.
[360] Sherburne’s John Paul Jones, 43-53, Jones to Commissioners, May
27, 1778; Clowes, Royal Navy, IV, 11-13.
[361] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 242.
[362] Sherburne’s John Paul Jones, 111-125, Jones to Franklin,
October 3, 1779, giving an account of cruise; Clowes, Royal Navy, IV,
33-39.
[363] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 375-77, 378-79, 535,
547-49, 562-63; IV, 293; Bigelow’s Franklin, VII, 108-09.
[364] Hale, Franklin in France, I, 327-28; Chapter XVII, Captain
Landais, prints many original letters connected with the dispute.
[365] Hale, Franklin in France, I, 330-31.
[366] Bigelow’s Franklin, VII, 97-98, Franklin to Jonathan Williams,
June 27, 1780.
[367] Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, III, 535.
[368] Force Transcripts, Library of Congress, 137, 3, p. 313.
[369] Journals of Continental Congress, November 4, 1780; July 10,
1781.
[370] Force Transcripts, Library of Congress, 137, 1, p. 463,
Instructions to Barclay.
[371] Journals of Continental Congress, November 18, 1782; Force
Transcripts, 137, p. 55, Instructions to Barclay.
[372] Journals of Congress, November 1, 1783; C. H. Lincoln, Calendar
of John Paul Jones Manuscripts, 188, Franklin to Jones, December 17,
1783.
[373] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 90, p. 9.
[374] Ibid., 90, pp. 21, 27.
[375] Force Transcripts, Library of Congress, 137, 1, p. 357.
[376] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 50, pp. 1-13,
Pollock to President of Congress, a _résumé_ of Pollock’s services as
commercial agent at New Orleans.
[377] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 50, p. 66.
[378] Ibid., 50, pp. 77-81.
[379] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 50, p. 97.
[380] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 50, p. 120, Copy of
Capitulation of Inhabitants of the Settlements on Lake Pontchartrain,
dated October 16, 1779, with signatures of nineteen men.
[381] Records and Papers of Continental Congress, 50, pp. 123-25,
Pollock to Pickles, January 20, 1780.
[382] Force Transcripts, Library of Congress, 137, 2, p. 281; 37, p.
95.
PART II
THE STATE NAVIES
CHAPTER XI
THE NAVY OF MASSACHUSETTS
With the exception of New Jersey and Delaware, each of the thirteen
original states during the Revolution owned one or more armed
vessels. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, and South Carolina had the largest fleets. New Hampshire
with its one ship and Georgia with its four galleys just escaped from
being in the same class with New Jersey and Delaware. The navies of
Rhode Island, New York, and North Carolina were small. The navy of
no one state was so large as that of Congress. The total number of
state craft, however, greatly exceeded the number of vessels in the
Continental navy. The state vessels on the average were smaller and
not so well armed as the Continental vessels. The states generally
had less means for naval purposes at their disposal than had
Congress, and were therefore not so well able to build large vessels.
Then, too, the chief need of each state for a navy was to defend its
seaports, coasts, and trade. For such service small craft, adapted
for running in and out of shallow harbors, rivers, and bays, was
demanded. The states therefore provided themselves with armed boats
of various sizes, galleys with and without sails, half-galleys,
floating batteries, barges, and fire-ships. Besides such vessels as
these, most of the states had a few larger and stouter sailing craft,
mounting generally from ten to twenty guns, and fairly well fitted
for deep-sea navigation. The one state whose deep-sea exceeded its
inshore craft was Massachusetts.
The history of naval administration in the several states possesses
some common features. It will be recalled that in most of the states
the provincial government about the year 1775 was superseded by
a revolutionary government, and this in turn about a year later
was succeeded by a permanent state government. The revolutionary
government consisted of a legislative body, or provincial congress,
and an executive body, or committee of safety. The permanent state
government consisted of a legislature of one or two houses and an
executive, which was either a council, or a governor and council.
The initial naval administration in the states usually fell to the
committee of safety, or revolutionary executive, which, upon the
change to a permanent state government, bequeathed its naval duties
to the council or to the governor and council. In most of the states
the details of naval administration were at some time during the
Revolution lodged with an executive board. Some states had separate
boards for naval and military affairs; in other states, one board
performed both functions.
The history of naval administration in the states falls into two
periods, one embracing the years from 1775 to 1778, the other the
years from 1779 to 1783. In the first period each state procured a
naval armament, as a rule, for the general purpose of providing a
naval defence, and not to meet some specific call for armed vessels.
By 1779 the first naval craft had been largely captured, destroyed,
or sold; and often the first machinery of naval administration
had been in large part removed. In response to special needs for
armed vessels, calls for which came most often from those who were
suffering from the ravages of the British fleets, the states now
procured additional vessels, and often devised new administrative
machinery to manage them.
In defensive warfare, the problem in each state was to provide for
the defence of its ports, trade, coasts, and shipping. The offensive
warfare of the state navies, which was quite secondary in importance,
consisted chiefly of commerce-destroying, conducted along the great
ocean-paths of British trade. The principal problem here was for the
American vessels in leaving home ports and in returning with their
prizes to elude the British vessels, which hovered along the American
coast, especially at the mouths of the Chesapeake, Delaware, and
Narragansett bays. It is always to be remembered that in all the
states the privateers exceeded the state craft, which were often
insignificant in comparison.
The reader recalls that in June, 1775, the battle of Bunker Hill was
fought, a British army occupied Boston, and British vessels sailed
the New England seas with little or no opposition. These vessels
had already committed depredations and “piracies” upon the coasts
and trade of Massachusetts, and were obstructing the importation
of ammunition and provisions for the Continental army. It was
under these circumstances that Massachusetts took her first step
towards procuring a naval armament. On June 7 her third Provincial
Congress appointed a committee of nine “to consider the expediency
of establishing a number of small armed vessels, to cruise on our
sea coasts, for the protection of our trade, and the annoyance of
our enemies.” The Provincial Congress, which moved very cautiously,
enjoined secrecy on the committee. On June 10 three additional
members were added to the committee; but later in the day a new
committee consisting of seven members was apparently substituted for
the old one. On June 12 the committee “appointed to consider the
expediency of establishing a number of armed vessels” made a report
which provided for the fitting out of not less than six vessels,
to mount eight to fourteen carriage guns, and to cruise under the
orders of the Committee of Safety—the chief executive organ of the
Provincial Congress consisting of nine members, three of whom were
from Boston. This report came up several times between June 12 and
June 20. Finally on the latter date “the matter was ordered to
subside.”[383] The Battle of Bunker Hill which was fought on June
17 may have had something to do with this action of the Provincial
Congress.
On July 19, 1775, the Revolutionary government in Massachusetts
was superseded by a permanent government consisting of a House of
Representatives and a Council of eighteen members elected by the
House; the two houses were called the General Court. The continued
depredations of the British now caused several endangered ports to
ask the General Court to provide them with a naval defence. The part
of Massachusetts which during the Revolution was most exposed to the
attacks of the British, and which was most troublesome to defend,
was the coast of Maine, then often referred to as the Eastern Coast.
In August, 1775, a petition came to the General Court from Machias,
a town situated on the Maine coast a few miles west of the present
Eastport, asking that commissions be granted to officers and men on
board two armed vessels which citizens of Machias had fitted out for
the defense of their town. In response the General Court took into
the service of the state the sloop “Machias Liberty” and the schooner
“Diligent.”[384] Jeremiah O’Brian, one of the men who had signed
the petition, was commissioned by the Council commander-in-chief of
the two vessels; and he was directed to enlist a number of men, not
to exceed thirty, for each vessel. The “Machias Liberty” and the
“Diligent” were in the service of the state until October, 1776, when
they were discharged. About the first of October, 1775, Salem and
Newburyport each asked the General Court for naval aid similar to
that granted to Machias, but did not receive it.[385]
The General Court of Massachusetts next turned its attention to
privateering. The acts of the states on this head fall into two
general classes; those which in terms established state privateering,
and those which adopted Continental privateering or accommodated
state laws to the same. After the first half of 1776 all the states
used Continental commissions and bonds. Massachusetts, moving in this
matter before Congress, necessarily established state privateering.
On September 28, 1775, her House of Representatives, having such
establishment in view, appointed a committee of seven to consider the
“Expediency of fitting out a Number of Armed Vessels.” On October 9,
this committee reported in favor of instituting privateering and a
prize court to try cases of capture. On October 14 a bill embodying
the committee’s recommendations was introduced. It now passed slowly
through the legislative mill, and on November 1 it became a law.[386]
John Adams once referred to this statute of Massachusetts as one
of the most important documents in the history of the Revolution.
Its preamble was the work of Elbridge Gerry, and the body of the
law was drafted by James Sullivan, many years later Governor of
Massachusetts.[387] Gerry stated the sanctions for the law. These
he found in the arbitrary and sanguinary acts of Great Britain, in
the charter of Massachusetts granted by King William and Queen Mary,
and lastly in the resolution of the Continental Congress of July
18, 1775, recommending each colony to provide by armed vessels or
otherwise for the protection of its harbors and navigation.
The Massachusetts law provided that all vessels convicted of making
unlawful invasions or attacks on the seacoasts or navigation of any
part of America should be forfeited. The Council was authorized to
grant letters of marque and reprisal to masters and owners of vessels
upon their entering into bond faithfully to discharge the duties
of their office and to observe the naval laws of the colony. Three
admiralty districts embracing the counties on the Massachusetts
seacoast were established. The Southern district with the seat of its
court at Plymouth embraced Plymouth county and the counties to the
southward; the Middle district with the seat of its court at Ipswich
embraced the counties of Suffolk, Middlesex, and Essex and extended
from Plymouth county to New Hampshire; and the Eastern district
with the seat of its court at North Yarmouth embraced the seacoast
counties of Maine. The form of procedure in these courts was fixed
for both captured and recaptured vessels. In the latter case salvage
was from one-third to one-fourth of the selling price of the vessel.
The facts in prize cases were to be tried by twelve good and lawful
men. At this time the people of Massachusetts were so enraged at
the judges of the former Provincial admiralty court that they would
have universally condemned the trying of facts in prize cases by
judges.[388]
The Council soon appointed three judges of admiralty, Nathan Cushing
for the Southern district, Timothy Pickering for the Middle district,
and James Sullivan for the Eastern district. Elbridge Gerry declined
the judgeship for the Middle district. After trying about one hundred
and fifty prize cases, Pickering in June, 1777, resigned, and was
succeeded by Nathan Cushing, who now served as judge in both the
Southern and Middle districts.[389] Comparatively few cases were
tried in the Southern and Eastern districts. Timothy Langdon was for
a long time judge of the Eastern district.
During the fall of 1775 the General Court took no steps towards
establishing a state navy. It was at this time assisting Washington
in obtaining and arming vessels for the Continental military service
around Boston. Early in December the House of Representatives,
acting on a recommendation contained in a letter from John Adams
at Philadelphia, resolved to obtain statistics on the number of
officers, seamen, and vessels, suitable for naval purposes, in the
seaports of Massachusetts. On December 29 the Council declared for
a navy by passing the following resolution: “Whereas several of the
United Colonies have of late thought it expedient and necessary
to fit out armed Vessels for the Defence of American Liberty, and
it appears to this Court necessary that Measures be taken by this
Colony for our further Protection by Sea: Therefore, Resolved that
John Adams and Joseph Palmer, Esqurs. with such as the Hon. House
shall join be a committee for fitting out one or more Vessels for the
Defence of American Liberty.”[390]
The House at once appointed its members of the committee, which
on January 12, 1776, made a report favorable to the establishment
of a navy.[391] Accordingly, on February 7 a resolution passed
the General Court to build ten sloops of war, of 110 or 115 tons
burden, each, suitable for carrying fourteen to sixteen carriage
guns, 6-pounders and 4-pounders. A joint committee of the two houses
was appointed to build the vessels, and £10,000 was voted for that
purpose.[392] On the 16th the committee was authorized to contract
for the building of only five vessels, until there was a prospect of
procuring materials for ten; it was authorized to buy five vessels,
if it thought best.[393] By July, 1776, the sloop “Tyrannicide” built
at Salisbury, the brigantine “Rising Empire” built at Dartmouth,
and the brigantine “Independence” built at Kingston were ready for
sea; and by September the sloops “Republic” and “Freedom” built at
Swanzey, and the “Massachusetts” built at Salisbury were completed.
Meanwhile the General Court had prepared and adopted the legislation
necessary to establish a navy. It had drafted proper naval forms;
and it had appointed a number of naval officers. A partial pay-table
was established on February 8.[394] This on April 12 was succeeded
by a new one, which generally raised wages, and which provided for
a number of new offices. A captain was now to receive a monthly
wage of £8; a first lieutenant, £5, 8s.; a second lieutenant, £5;
a master, £4; a mate, £3; a surgeon, £7; and an ordinary seaman,
£2. Each vessel was to be provided with 115 officers and seamen. No
better proof of the rawness of the naval service is needed than that
afforded by the regulation that recruits, whether officers, seamen,
or marines, should furnish themselves with “a good effective Fire
Arm, Cartouch Box, Cutlass, and Blanket.” The captains were ordered
to recommend to the Council a list of inferior officers and to
enlist the proposed number of seamen and marines. Captors were given
one-third of the proceeds of prizes.[395]
On April 27, 1776, the General Court fixed the respective shares
of the proceeds of prizes for officers and seamen: a captain was
to receive six shares, and “all the Cabbin Furniture;” a first
lieutenant, five shares; a drummer, one and one-fourth shares; a
seaman, one share; and a boy, one-half a share.[396] On April 29,
in order to encourage enlistment, an advance of one month’s wages
was voted to recruits. On the same day it was decided that “the
Uniform of Officers be Green and White, and that the Colours be a
white Flagg, with a green Pine Tree, and an Inscription, ‘Appeal to
Heaven.’”[397] On July 26 the Council appointed a prize agent in each
of the three admiralty districts, whose duty was to represent the
state in receiving, trying, and selling prizes.[398] At times the
prize agents assisted in fitting out vessels.
During the first half of 1776 the law of November 1, 1775,
establishing privateering, was three times amended and
remodelled.[399] The law was thereby accommodated to the resolutions
of the Continental Congress fixing the kinds of property subject
to capture, and the respective shares of captors and recaptors.
Doubts which had arisen as to the proper construction of the
original act were now removed. The procedure before admiralty courts
was made more specific. In cases of captures made by Continental
vessels, appeals were permitted from state admiralty courts to the
Continental Congress; in all other cases, appeals were allowed to the
superior state courts. In each of the three admiralty districts in
Massachusetts additional towns were named where court might be held.
The towns named for the Middle district were Boston, Salem, Ipswich,
and Newburyport.
During the summer and fall of 1776 the instructions and orders to the
captains of the armed vessels were issued to them by the Council,
having been previously prepared by a committee. The following
instructions, which were drafted by Thomas Cushing and Daniel
Hopkins, were given to Captain John Fisk, and will suffice as a
sample of such documents:
“The Brigantine Tyrannicide under your Command being properly Armed
and Man’d and in other respects fitted for a Cruise you are hereby
Ordered and directed immediately to proceed to sea and use your
utmost Endeavors to protect the Sea Coast and Trade of the United
States and you are also directed to exert yourself in making Captures
of all Ships and other Vessels Goods Wares and Merchandise belonging
to the King of Great Britain or any of his subjects wherever residing
excepting only the Ships and Goods of the Inhabitants of Bermuda
and the Bahama Islands—You are directed not to Cruize further
Southward than Latitude Twelve North nor farther East than Longitude
Nine Degrees West from London nor farther West than the Shoals of
Nantucket. At all times using necessary precautions to prevent your
Vessel from falling into the hands of the Enemy.
“And Whereas you have received a Commission authorizing you to make
Captures aforesaid and a set of Instructions have been delivered
you for regulating your Conduct in that matter; these Instructions
you are Hereby directed diligently to attend to, and if you are so
fortunate as to make any Captures you are to Order them to make the
first safe Harbor within the United States.-and you are further
Ordered not to expend your Ammunition unnecessarily and only in time
of Action or firing Alarm or Signal guns.”[400]
Until October, 1776, the Massachusetts navy was administered by
the General Court, committees of its members, the Council, and
naval agents. The General Court for the period of its recess in
May, 1776, placed the armed vessels in the charge of “the committee
for fortifying the harbor of Boston.” By the fall of that year it
realized that “secrecy, dispatch, and economy in conducting the war”
demanded a special executive department. Accordingly, on October
26 it established a Board of War consisting of nine members, any
five of whom constituted a quorum. The Board of War was “empowered
to Order and Direct the Operations of the Forces in the Pay of
this State, both by sea and land, by giving the Commanders of the
Troops, Garrisons, and Vessels of War, such Orders for their Conduct
and Cruizes from time to time as they shall think proper.”[401]
It organized by electing a president and secretary; and it rented
permanent quarters near the State House in Boston. In December, 1776,
James Warren, later Commissioner for the Continental Navy Board at
Boston, was president of the Board of War. Philip Henry Savage was
for a long time its president. Savage presided at the meeting in
1773 at Old South Church which decided that the tea should not be
landed.[402] The Board of War entered upon its work with vigor in
November, 1776. It was yearly renewed, until it was dissolved in
February, 1781.
The principal business of the Board of War was the administration of
the naval, commercial, and military affairs of the state. Its naval
and commercial duties were quite engrossing. The Board kept fairly
distinct the activities of its “armed” and “trading” vessels. It is
true that the armed vessels were now and then sent on commercial
errands, or combined in a single voyage naval and trading duties.
The sloop “Republic,” used for a short time as a naval vessel, was
taken into the commercial service. The Massachusetts Archives contain
a list of thirty-two trading vessels owned or chartered by the Board
of War.[403] These vessels visited Nantes, Bilbao, Martinique,
Guadaloupe, St. Eustatius, Cape Francois, Baltimore, and the ports
of North and South Carolina. They carried as staple exports, fish,
lumber, and New England rum.
As a rule the work of the Board of War in looking after its trading
vessels exceeded its naval work. At times, as in the case of the
Penobscot expedition, the naval duties were the important ones. A
week’s work of the Board in behalf of its armed vessels shows a
curious mixture of orders on the commissary-general for clothing
and provisions, and on the state storekeeper for naval stores; and
of directions to the prize agents, the agents for building armed
vessels, and the naval captains. The General Court permitted the
Board a rather free hand in its management of the navy. The Board
carried on a considerable correspondence with the commanders of the
armed vessels. The following letter written to the Board by Captain
John Clouston of the armed sloop “Freedom” on May 23, 1777, from
Paimboeuf, France, will illustrate this correspondence from the
Captain’s side. Clouston’s disregard of orthography and punctuation
is exceptional even for a Revolutionary officer.
“Gentlemen:
I have the pleasure of Informing your Honours by Capt. Fisk of the
‘Massachusetts’ That on the first Instant I arrived safe in this
Port after taking twelve Sail of Englis Vessels Seven of which
I despatched for Boston Burnt three gave one smal Brigg to our
Prisners and one Retaken by the ‘Futereange’ which Chast us fore
Glasses and finding she Could not Cume up with us she gave Chase
to our Prize and toock her in our sight—I have Cleaned & Refited
my Vessel and Taken in forty Tons of War like Stores and have bin
waiting for a wind to go this fore days—Capt. Fisk being short of
Provisions I have supplied him with foreteen Barels of Pork and
Eleven of Beef and have Suffisantse for my Vessel left.”[404]
In January, 1777, a new sea establishment was effected. Wages were
generally raised, no doubt chiefly to meet their decrease caused
by the depreciation of the currency. A captain was now to receive
a monthly wage of £14, 8s.; a lieutenant or a master, £7, 4s.; a
seaman, £2, 8s.; and a boy, £1, 4s. The offices established in the
Massachusetts navy, while not quite so many, were in general the
same as those in the Continental navy. The Massachusetts navy,
however, had the offices of prizemaster, pilot, and boy, which
did not occur in the Continental list. Following the regulations
of Congress, the General Court now gave captors one-half of their
captures. The rations for seamen were modelled on the Continental
bill of fare.[405] On March 21, 1777, the General Court adopted
rules and regulations for its ships of war; and it ordered that
they should be read by the commanding officer of a vessel at least
once a week. These rules, while briefer than the Continental rules,
naturally followed the same general lines. They show either the
influence of the Continental rules or of the English rules upon
which the Continental rules were based. The following curious rule
in part parallels quotations made from the Continental rules in
Chapter I:
“And if any Person belonging to either of such Vessels shall be
convicted of Theft, Drunkenness, profane Cursing, or Swearing,
disregarding the Sabbath, or using the Name of God lightly, or
profanely, or shall be guilty of quarreling or fighting, or of
any reproachful or provoking Language tending to make Quarrels,
or of any turbulent or mutinous Behavior, or if any Person shall
sleep upon his Watch, or forsake his Station, or shall in any wise
neglect to perform the Duty enjoined him, he shall be punished for
any of the said Offences at the Discretion of the commissioned
Officers of such Vessel, or the Major Part of them, according
to the Nature and Aggravation of the Offence, by sitting in the
Stocks, or wearing a wooden Collar about his Neck, not exceeding 4
Hours, nor less than one, or by whipping, not exceeding 12 Lashes,
or by being put in Irons for so long Time as the said Officers
shall judge the Safety and well being of the Ship and Crew
requires, or otherwise shall forfeit to the State not more than
six, nor less than two Days Pay for each offence.”[406]
During every year of the Revolution attempts were made to increase
the Massachusetts navy. In the fall of 1777 the brigantine “Hazard”
was added. On August 6, 1777, the General Court resolved that, since
the armed vessels at the lowest computation had netted the state
£55,000, the Board of War should purchase or build two vessels
mounting 28 and 32 guns, respectively. In January, 1778, it reduced
the sizes of these vessels almost one-half; and finally it gave up
building them.[407] In the spring of 1779 a prize of the “Hazard,”
the brigantine “Active,” taken in April off the island of St. Thomas
in the West Indies, was purchased.[408] In April, 1778, the General
Court resolved to build a frigate of 28 guns, which would carry two
hundred officers and men.[409] This vessel was built at Newburyport
and was named the “Protector.” In the fall of 1779 it was nearing
completion. The launching of the “Protector,” which was the largest
ship in the Massachusetts navy, was a matter of more than usual
local interest. Stephen Cross who was in charge of the construction
of the frigate wrote a letter to the Board of War in July, 1779,
which throws light upon the minor naval duties of the Board. Cross’s
language is somewhat involved, but his meaning is clear; it is hardly
necessary to say that the “souring” refers to lemons.
“Gentlemen.
it being customary for the owners of Vessels when they are Launched
to give the Workmen something Better than New England Rum to drink
& Likewise some thing to Eat and also all those Persons who Attend
the Launching Expect to be asked to Drink and Eat something and
Especially Publick Vessells it will be Expected that something be
Provided and it is my opinion about sixty Galls of West India Rum &
sugars for the same & souring if to be had and one Quarter Cask of
Wine and A Hamper of ale or Beer together with a Tierce hams Neet
Tongs or Corn Beef will be necessary to comply with the Customs in
these Cases.”[410]
After August, 1779, when the disaster on the Penobscot occurred,
the naval duties of the Board of War were slight. For a time the
“Protector” was the only vessel in the navy. With the coming in of a
new government under a Constitution on October 25, 1780, there was
no longer much need for a Board of War. According to the provisions
of the new Constitution, the Governor was commander-in-chief of
the navy; and he was authorized to “train, instruct, exercise, and
govern it,” and to call it into service in time of war. On February
8, 1781, the Board of War was discontinued, and Caleb Davis, who was
appointed Agent of the Commonwealth, succeeded to its ministerial
duties.[411] The Governor and the Agent now shared the naval duties.
The Governor commissioned officers, issued orders to the naval
commanders, and was responsible to the General Court; the Agent
had direct oversight of the fitting out of vessels, the selling of
prizes, and was responsible to the Governor. As the Revolution spent
itself the simplification of the administrative machinery of the
state continued. On January 1, 1783, the Agent was discontinued. His
naval duties fell to the Commissary-General.[412]
During each year from 1780 to 1783 the General Court made one or more
attempts to increase the naval force of the state. It was spurred to
action by the ravages of the British cruisers on the Eastern Coast.
On March 21, 1780, two armed vessels mounting not less than ten or
more than fourteen 4’s or 6’s were ordered. The expense incurred was
to be met by the sale of the “Rising Empire” and of the confiscated
estates of Loyalists, and from the rents of the property of
absentees. On March 6, 1781, the Agent was directed to obtain a small
vessel of eight to twelve guns to serve as a tender for the “Mars;”
and on April 23, he was ordered to procure by hire or purchase two
small craft to be employed as “guarda coasta.” On November 12,
1782, a committee was appointed to purchase a vessel of twelve or
sixteen guns to be used in protecting the coast. On March 26, 1783,
the Commissary-General was ordered to obtain a small vessel and a
whale boat to cruise against the enemy in Casco Bay and along the
Eastern Shore.[413] As the result of these resolutions, four armed
vessels were added to the navy: in the spring of 1780 the “Mars;” in
the summer of 1781, the “Defence;” in the winter of 1781-1782, the
“Tartar,” which was built by the state; and in the spring of 1782,
the “Winthrop.”
Private naval enterprise throughout the Revolution was exceedingly
active in Massachusetts. In 1775, some months before the General
Court granted letters of marque, Massachusetts citizens,
unauthorized, were capturing the vessels of the enemy. Scarcely a
fortnight after the battles of Lexington and Concord men from New
Bedford and Dartmouth fitted out a vessel and attacked and cut out
from a harbor in Martha’s Vineyard a prize of the British sloop of
war “Falcon,” 16. This act was called forth by the captures which the
“Falcon” had made from the people of Buzzard’s Bay. On June 12, 1775,
the inhabitants of Machias, Maine, had captured the King’s sloop
“Margaretta,” Lieutenant Moore, after mortally wounding the commander
and inflicting a loss of fourteen men. Still other British vessels
were captured off the coast of Maine during the summer of 1775.[414]
With the act of November 1, 1775, granting to the Council the power
to issue letters of marque and reprisal, all such private enterprises
as the above, when done under the authority of a commission, were
legal. It does not appear however that Massachusetts granted many
commissions until the second half of 1776. In 1777 she granted 96
commissions. The best year was 1779 when she issued 222 commissions;
the year 1781 with 216 commissions was not far behind. The total
number of commissions issued by Massachusetts for the years 1777
to 1783 was 998.[415] In 1779 one hundred and eighty-four prizes
captured by privateers were libelled in the Massachusetts prize
courts.[416] The privateering industry for this year was very active.
The following is an extract from a letter dated May 16, 1779, written
from a Massachusetts seaport:
“Privateering was never more in vogue than at present; two or three
privateers sail every week from this port, and men seem as plenty
as grasshoppers in the field; no vessel being detained an hour for
want of them. We have near 1,000 prisoners on board the guard-ships
in Boston, and a great balance due us from the enemy. Cruisers from
New York, &c are daily brought in, and often by vessels of inferior
force; our privateersmen being as confident of victory, when upon an
equal footing with the English, as these were of gaining it of the
French in the last war.”[417]
The rivalry between the state service and the privateers for
seamen was exceedingly active. The latter service was always the
more popular. In 1779 the Council recommended that some effectual
measures be taken to prevent the owners of private ships of war and
merchantmen from seducing seamen away that were engaged in the public
service. It declared that proper encouragement must be given to state
officers and seamen, and that commanders must have the aid of the
government in manning their vessels, “or they will lie by the Walls
and so be of little or no service.”[418] In 1778 the General Court
found some difficulty in securing commanders.
The movements of the armed vessels of the Massachusetts navy
are quite similar to the movements of the naval vessels of
Congress.[419] The smaller fleet like the larger cruised in European
waters, in the region of the West Indies, and to the eastward of
the Bermudas in the path of the richly-laden West Indiamen. The
Massachusetts vessels, however, cruised more frequently nearer home.
About the first of June, 1779, the “Hazard” and “Tyrannicide” were
in the region of Nantucket. After 1779 the vessels were frequently
ordered to protect the Eastern Coast. In the spring of 1777 the
“Tyrannicide,” Captain Jonathan Haraden, “Massachusetts,” Captain
John Fisk, and “Freedom,” Captain John Clouston, cruised eastward as
far as the coasts of France and Spain, capturing some twenty-five
prizes, many of which however, were recaptured by the British.[420]
This was a most fortunate venture, for all told one can not now count
more than seventy prizes captured by the Massachusetts navy. In the
summer of 1780 the Board of War turned over the “Mars,” Captain
Simeon Samson, to the Massachusetts Committee for Foreign Affairs
which sent her to France and Holland for supplies.
The state vessels were at times joined in cruises with privateers
or with Continental vessels; and enterprises were concerted with
all three classes of armed craft. In April, 1777, the state took
into its service for a month nine privateers, mounting 130 guns and
carrying 1,030 men, to cruise with the Continental frigate “Hancock”
and “Boston” after the British frigate “Milford” which had been
especially annoying and destructive to the trade of the state.[421]
In February, 1781, the “Protector” was cruising with the Continental
frigate “Deane” thirty leagues windward of Antigua. In March, 1781,
the Admiral of the French fleet at Newport was requested to send two
French ships to cruise with the “Mars” on the Eastern shore; and a
bounty was offered to privateersmen who would cruise against the
“worthless banditti” in that region.[422]
The capture of a prize often amounted to little more than the
chasing of a merchantman and the firing of a few shots as a signal
for surrender. At times however when the merchantman was armed, or
when the enemy’s vessel happened to be a privateer, the action was
more serious. One of the most severe single engagements in which a
Massachusetts vessel was concerned was that between the “Protector,”
26, Captain John Foster Williams, and the privateer frigate “Admiral
Duff,” 32, Captain Stranger. It occurred on June 9, 1780, in latitude
42° N. and longitude 47° W. The engagement was heavy for an hour and
a half when the “Admiral Duff,” having caught fire, blew up; all
on board were lost except fifty-five men who were picked up by the
“Protector.” The American vessel lost six men.[423] The following
brief account of one of these minor engagements, told in the simple
and direct language of the Massachusetts captain who took part in
it, is taken from a letter of Captain Allen Hallet to the Board of
War. It is dated at sea on board the “Tyrannicide,” latitude 28° N.,
longitude 68° W., March 31, 1779. This simple and vivid description
shows with clearness the character of the minor engagements of the
Revolution.
“I have the pleasure of sending this to you by Mr. John Blanch who
goes prizemaster of my Prize, the Privateer Brig Revenge, lately
commanded by Capt. Robert Fendall belonging to Grenada, but last from
Jamaica, mounting 14 Carriage Guns, 6 & 4 pounders, 4 swivels & 2
Cohorns, & sixty ablebodied Men, which I took after a very smart &
Bloody Engagement, in which they had 8 men killed & fourteen wounded,
the Vessell cut very much to pieces by my Shott, so that they had
no command of her at all—amongst the killed was the 1st Lieut. & one
Quarter Mr.—amongst the wounded is the Capt. 2nd. Lieut. & Gunner—I
captured her as follows: on the 29 Inst. at 4 PM. I made her about
4 leagues to windward coming down upon us, upon which I cleared the
Ship and got all hands to Quarter, ready for an Engagement, I stood
close upon the Wind waiting for her, about half past six PM. she came
up with me, and hailed me, ask’d me where I was from, I told them I
was from Boston & asked where they were from, they said from Jamaica
& that they were a British Cruizer, I immediately told them I was
an American Cruizer, upon which they ordered me to Strike, & seeing
I did not intend to gratify their desires, they rang’d up under my
Lee & gave me a Broadside, I immediately return’d the Compliment &
dropping a Stern, I got under their Lee and then pour’d Broadsides
into her from below and out of the Tops, so fast & so well directed
that in one hour & a Quarter we dismantled two of her Guns & drove
them from their Quarters & compell’d them to Strike their Colors,
during the whole Engagement we were not at any one time more than
half Pistol Shott distant & some part of the Time our Yards were
lock’d with theirs—I had Eight men wounded only two of which are
Bad—amongst the wounded are my first Lieut. & Master, I intended
to man her and keep her as a Consort during the Cruize, but having
twenty wounded Men on board, of my own men & prisoners I thought it
Best to send her home, with all the wounded men on board under the
Care of the Surgeons Mate.”[424]
By far the largest naval undertaking of the Revolution made by the
Americans was the Penobscot Expedition. Until 1779 the general
policy of those who managed the fleet of Massachusetts was to send
its vessels cruising against the British transports, merchantmen,
and small privateers, and to leave the coast to be defended by the
seacoast establishment and by local forces. In August, 1777, the
Council agreed with this policy for it then spoke of the Continental
vessels, the state vessels, and the privateers as “improper” to be
employed in clearing the coasts of these “vermin.”[425] In April,
1779, however, it disapproved this policy. It now in a message to
the House submitted whether, instead of sending the armed vessels
on long cruises after prizes, it would not have been vastly more to
the advantage and profit of the state to have employed them cruising
on the coast of Massachusetts for the protection of trade and the
defence of harbors and seacoast, “which have been left in such an
unguarded and defenceless Situation that where we have taken one
Vessel of the Enemy their small privateers out of New York have taken
ten from us.”[426] It would seem that the Board of War was right
in employing its fleet in prize-getting rather than in defensive
warfare. The capturing of small privateers and of merchantmen were
the only enterprises for which the Revolutionary fleets were adapted.
Those vessels that cruised continually near the American coast,
sooner or later, fell foul of the stouter and better armed ships
of the enemy. Moreover, the Board of War, had it not responded to
the commercial spirit of the times, would have been compelled to
adopt the methods of the privateers, did it wish to succeed in its
competition with them for seamen.
During the first half of 1779 the British vessels were very
destructive to the trade and shipping of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire. On June 9, eight hundred of the enemy, encouraged by
certain Tories in Maine, effected a lodgment on the Maine coast at a
place called Bagaduce, now Castine, near the mouth of the Penobscot
river.[427] This made a fine vantage-point as a base for naval
operations. The appeal for naval protection which the inhabitants
of Massachusetts now made upon her was a strong one. Towards the
close of June the Massachusetts government began concerting with
the Continental Navy Board at Boston and with the government of New
Hampshire an expedition to capture and destroy this British station.
Samuel Adams, who had recently retired from the chairmanship of the
Marine Committee of Congress and had returned to Boston, furthered
the enterprise. To the fleet which was now formed, New Hampshire
contributed the “Hampden,” 22; the Navy Board at Boston, the
Continental vessels, “Warren,” 32, “Providence,” 12, and “Diligent,”
12; and Massachusetts, the three state brigantines, “Tyrannicide,”
16, “Hazard,” 14, and “Active,” 14, together with thirteen
privateers, which were temporarily taken into the state service.
These twenty armed vessels mounted in all 324 guns, and were manned
by more than 2,000 men. Besides the armed fleet there were twenty
transports which carried upwards of 1,000 state militia. The naval
forces were under the command of Captain Dudley Saltonstall of the
Continental navy; and the troops were commanded by Brigadier-General
Solomon Lovell of the state military forces of Massachusetts. Paul
Revere was Chief of Artillery with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
The assembling, manning, provisioning, and fitting of so many vessels
greatly taxed the resources of Massachusetts. The fleet left Boston
on July 19, and during the last days of the month appeared off the
Penobscot, and attacked Bagaduce with only partial success, since it
failed to take the main fort. Before a second attempt was made, a
British fleet from New York under the command of Sir George Collier,
who had received news of the expedition, appeared in the Penobscot.
The British fleet consisted of the “Raisonnable,” 64; “Blonde,” and
“Virginia,” 32’s; “Greyhound,” “Camilla,” and “Gallatea,” 20’s; and
“Otter,” 14; together with three small vessels at the garrison, the
“Nautilus,” 16, “Albany,” 14, and “North,” 14. The British fleet
mounted 248 guns and carried more than 1,600 men. In number of guns
and men the advantage lay with the Americans, but in weight of metal
and tonnage it was probably with the British. On the morning of
August 14 the British fleet came in sight of the American. The two
fleets were barely in range of each other’s guns when the Americans
were seized with a panic, and fled with their vessels helter skelter
up the river, pursued by the British. The Americans offered almost no
resistance whatever, but ran their ships ashore, set fire to them,
and escaped afoot, when not too closely pursued. With the exception
of two or three vessels which were captured, the American fleet
was annihilated. The British lost 13 men; the American loss has
been placed at 474 men. The larger part of the American sailors and
soldiers returned by woods to New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
The total cost of this expedition to Massachusetts as calculated
by the Board of War was £1,739,175. The larger part of this sum,
£1,390,200, was charged to the account of the navy. It suffered the
loss of three state armed vessels and a victualer, nine privateers,
and twenty transports. Among the twenty transports, with possibly
one exception, was the whole trading fleet of the state. Soon
after the disaster a joint committee of the Massachusetts House of
Representatives and Council with Artemas Ward as president, held
an inquiry and made a report on the causes of the failure of the
expedition. In answer to the question, “What appears the principal
reason of the failure,” the committee decided unanimously, “want
of proper Spirit and Energy on the part of the Commodore.” A
court-martial, which was held on the frigate “Deane” in Boston harbor
about the first of October, decided against Captain Saltonstall;
and he was dismissed from the navy. Rarely has a more ignominious
military operation been made by Americans than the Penobscot
expedition. A New Englander with some justice has likened it to
Hull’s surrender at Detroit. Had it been successful, it would not
have been worth the effort it cost. Its object had no national
significance; it was an eccentric operation. “Bad in conception, bad
in preparation, bad in execution, it naturally ended in disaster and
disgrace.”[428]
Besides the “Tyrannicide,” “Hazard,” and “Active” the Massachusetts
navy lost to the enemy at least three other vessels. Towards the
close of 1777 the British captured the “Freedom” and “Independence.”
On May 5, 1781, His Majesty’s ships “Roebuck,” 44, and “Medea,” 28,
captured the “Protector,” 26, with more than one hundred and thirty
men on board.[429] She was added to the Royal Navy as the “Hussar.”
In the latter half of 1782 Captain George Little in the “Winthrop”
cruised on the Eastern Coast, and captured and sent into Boston
“nearly the whole of the arm’d force they possessed at Penobscot;”
he thus in part retrieved the naval honor of his state.[430] Acting
under orders of Governor Hancock, Little in the “Winthrop” made
the last cruise of the Massachusetts navy, when in the winter of
1782-1783 he visited Martinique. On his return, he was fitting for
a cruise on the Eastern Coast, when about April 1 news of permanent
peace arrived. On June 4, 1783, the Commissary-General was directed
to sell the “Winthrop,” the last vessel in the navy. The “Tartar” had
been sold during the past winter.[431] Captain Little’s accounts were
being settled in March, 1785.
FOOTNOTES:
[383] Journals of Third Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, June
7, June 10, June 11, June 12, June 13, June 16, June 19, and June
20, 1775. All references to the state records of Massachusetts refer
to the manuscripts or early printed copies to be found in the State
Library or State Archives at Boston.
[384] Journals of Massachusetts House of Representatives, August 21,
1775. O’Brian’s name is found spelled in various ways.
[385] Ibid., September 29, October 2, October 4,. 1775; Records of
General Court of Massachusetts, October 4, 1775.
[386] Journals of Massachusetts House of Representatives, September
28, October 6, 9, 14 17, 18, 19, 27, November 1, 1775.
[387] Austin’s Gerry, I, 94-95; Works of John Adams, X, 37.
[388] Amory’s Sullivan, II, 378-79, James Sullivan to Gerry, December
25, 1779.
[389] Records of Massachusetts Council, November 14, December 9,
December 12, 1775; Pickering’s Pickering, I, 79-80; Amory’s Sullivan,
I, 63.
[390] Records of General Court of Massachusetts, December 29, 1775.
[391] Journals of Massachusetts House of Representatives, January
12, 1776. On January 11 the Council resolved that two ships, one of
36, and the other of 32 guns, should be built. On the same day both
House and Council voted to recommit the resolution in order that
the committee which prepared it might report on the expense to be
incurred in building and fitting the two ships. It does not appear
that further action was taken.—Records of Massachusetts Council,
January 11, 1776.
[392] Journals of Massachusetts House of Representatives, February 6,
1776; Records of Massachusetts Council, February 7, 1776.
[393] Journals of Massachusetts House of Representatives, February
16, 1776.
[394] Journals of Massachusetts House of Representatives, February 7,
1776; Records of Massachusetts Council, February 8, 1776.
[395] Journals of Massachusetts House of Representatives, April 12,
1776.
[396] Ibid., April 27, 1776.
[397] Journals of Massachusetts House of Representatives, April 29,
1776; Records of Massachusetts Council, April 29, 1776.
[398] Ibid. (Records), July 26, 1776.
[399] Goodell, Laws of Massachusetts, February 14, April 13, May 8,
1776.
[400] Records of Massachusetts Council, October 29, 1776. The naval
documents introduced in the narrative on the Massachusetts navy are
typical of similar ones in other states.
[401] Resolves of Massachusetts, October 26, 1776.
[402] Winsor’s Memorial History of Boston, II, 543.
[403] Massachusetts Revolutionary Archives, XL, 110-11. The influence
on the naming of vessels of the friendly relations existing between
the United States and France during the Revolution early manifested
itself. On December 27, 1776, the Massachusetts Board of War changed
the names of its trading vessels as follows: ships, “Julius Cæsar”
to “Bourbon,” “Venus” to “Versailles,” and “Friend” to “Paris;”
brigantines, “Charming Sally” to “Penet,” and “Isabella” to “Count
D’Estaing.” The brigantine “Penet,” which was named for a French
merchant at Nantes, a member of the firm of Pliarne, Penet and
Company, agents for the United States, has been sometimes confused
with the brigantine “Perch,” which was obtained by Massachusetts
in the fall of 1777 for the sole purpose of conveying the news of
Burgoyne’s surrender to the American Commissioners at Paris. The
letters and dispatches were intrusted with Jonathan Loring Austin,
secretary of the Board of War, who after a passage of thirty days
reached the Commissioners at Passy on December 4, 1777.—Board of War
Minutes, December 27, 1776; Hale’s Franklin in France, I, 155.
[404] Board of War Letters, Massachusetts Revolutionary Archives, May
23, 1777.
[405] Massachusetts Resolves, January 8, January 24, 1777. On
December 6, 1776, six naval offices were established, which included
a captain’s clerk, prizemaster, and sergeant of marines.
[406] Massachusetts Resolves, March 21, 1777.
[407] Ibid., August 6, 1777; January 17, 1778.
[408] The following is an extract from the enlisting contract of
the armed brig “Active,” which was signed by officers, seamen, and
marines: “And we hereby bind ourselves to Submit to all orders and
regulations of the Navy of the United States of North America and
this State and faithfully to observe and obey all such orders, and
Commands as we shall receive from time to time from our Superior
Officers on board or belonging to the said Brig Active and on board
any Such Boats or Vessel or Vessels as foresaid.
“And it is on the part of the State that such persons as by Land
or sea shall loose a Limb in any Engagement with the Enemies of
these United States of America or be otherwise so disabled as to
be rendered incapable of getting a Lively Hood Shall be entitled
to the same Provisions as the disabled Persons in the Continental
Service.”—Massachusetts Revolutionary Archives, XL, 20.
[409] Massachusetts Resolves, April 21, 1778.
[410] Massachusetts Revolutionary Archives, XLIV, 279.
[411] Massachusetts Resolves, February 8, 1781. Three members of the
Board of War and two clerks were continued for a few months to settle
the accounts of the Board.
[412] Massachusetts Resolves, October 4, 1782.
[413] Massachusetts Resolves, March 21, 1780; February 19, March 6,
April 23, 1781; November 12, 1782; March 26, 1783.
[414] Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, VI, 564; Maclay,
History of American Privateering, 52-60.
[415] Massachusetts Revolutionary Archives. The total numbers of
privateering commissions always exceed the total numbers of vessels,
as the same vessels were often commissioned two or more times.
[416] Boston Gazette for 1779.
[417] Virginia Gazette, June 19, 1779.
[418] Journals of House of Representatives, January 6, 1779.
[419] The vessels in the Massachusetts navy with the approximate
periods of their service were as follows: Sloop “Machias Liberty,”
1775-1776; schooner “Diligent,” 1775-1776; brigantine (at first
a sloop) “Tyrannicide,” 1776-1779; brigantine “Rising Empire,”
1776-1777; brigantine “Independence,” 1776-1777; sloop “Republic,”
1776-1777; sloop “Freedom,” 1776-1777; brigantine “Massachusetts,”
1776-1778; brigantine “Hazard,” 1777-1779; brigantine “Active,”
1779; frigate “Protector,” 1779-1781; ship “Mars,” 1780-1781;
sloop “Defence,” 1781; ship “Tartar,” 1782-1783; sloop “Winthrop,”
1782-1783; and galley “Lincoln,” 1779-1781. Most of these vessels
mounted from ten to twenty guns, 4’s and 6’s. The only larger vessel
was the “Protector,” 26. Vessels such as the “Tyrannicide,” “Hazard,”
and “Winthrop” carried about 125 officers and men. The following
captains or commanders were the chief officers in the Massachusetts
navy: Jeremiah O’Brian, John Lambert, John Fisk, John Foster
Williams, John Clouston, Jonathan Haraden, Daniel Souther, Simeon
Samson, Richard Welden, Allen Hallet, James Nevens, John Cathcart and
George Little. Massachusetts did not establish the rank of commodore.
[420] These three vessels captured the four prizes mentioned in
the following advertisement, which appeared in the Continental
Journal and Weekly Advertiser for July 3, 1777, a paper published at
Boston. The advertisement is introduced here to illustrate the final
disposition of prize vessels:
“To be sold by Public Auction at eleven o’clock on Wednesday the
23rd of July instant at Mr. Tileston’s wharf in Boston the following
prizes with their appurtenances.
“The Ship Lonsdale, about 250 tons
Brig Britannia, about 140 ”
Brig Penelope, about 130 ”
Snow Sally, about 180 ”
“The above prizes lay at Tileston’s wharf. They are all good vessels
and well found. Inventories to be seen at the sheriff’s office
Cornhill, and at the place of sale.
“W. Greenleaf, Sheriff.”
[421] Massachusetts Resolves, April 26, 1777; Massachusetts
Revolutionary Archives, XL, 29, 55.
[422] Massachusetts Resolves, March 2, 1781.
[423] Boston Gazette, July 24, 1780.
[424] Massachusetts Revolutionary Archives, XLIV, 408.
[425] Ibid., 268.
[426] Journals of Massachusetts House of Representatives, April 7,
1779.
[427] Amory’s Sullivan, II, 376-78, James Sullivan to John Sullivan,
August 30, 1779. James Sullivan says that, on the occupation of
Bagaduce by the British, Boston and neighboring seaports were greatly
alarmed at the prospect of a scarcity of wood; and that men who had
made their fortunes by war, for once and for a moment, felt a public
spirit, and freely offered their ships to the government. They were
careful to have them appraised and insured by the state, which of
course suffered the loss on the failure of the expedition.
[428] Massachusetts Revolutionary Archives, CXLV, 199-203, 350;
Weymouth Historical Society Publications, I, chapters VII-X, gives
the best account of the Penobscot expedition, also contains the
Original Journal of General Solomon Lovell kept on the expedition;
Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 7th, II, 430;
Proceedings of Massachusetts Historical Society, 2nd, XII, 201-202;
Clowes, Royal Navy, IV, 28-29.
[429] Massachusetts Revolutionary Archives, XXXIX, 45.
[430] Ibid., CLVIII, 274, Message of Governor Hancock to House of
Representatives, February 6, 1783.
[431] Massachusetts Resolves, June 4, 1783. Those naval vessels
which were not captured, destroyed, or sold, were either returned to
their owners, or were thrown out of commission and employed in other
services.
CHAPTER XII
THE NAVY OF CONNECTICUT
An introductory word about the government of Connecticut during
the Revolution may not be amiss. Speaking generally, the power
of legislation was vested in the Governor, Council, and House of
Representatives; and of administration in the Governor and Council
of Safety.[432] The Legislature or General Assembly met two or three
times a year. Jonathan Trumbull, the only Provincial governor in
the thirteen colonies who was not displaced by the dominance of the
Patriot party, was governor of Connecticut throughout the Revolution.
On October 10, 1776, Connecticut, by a resolution of the General
Assembly, which made no change in the frame-work of the government,
ceased to be a colony and became a state. The Council of Safety,
appointed to assist the Governor in administration, was elected each
year. Its membership varied in numbers; in 1775 there were five
members; in 1779, twenty. About half of its members attended its
meetings, which were principally held at Hartford, and at Lebanon,
the home of Governor Trumbull. Roger Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, and
other leaders of the Revolution in Connecticut served in the Council
of Safety.
Connecticut’s first step towards obtaining a naval armament was
made early in July, 1775, when her General Assembly resolved to fit
out and arm two vessels of suitable burden for the defence of the
seacoasts of the colony, and authorized the Governor and Council to
procure, furnish, and employ the two vessels.[433] On July 24, 1775,
the Governor and Council of Safety thoroughly considered the “affair
of the two armed vessels;” and letters relating thereto from men
in New Haven, Middletown, Wethersfield, and other towns were read.
Captain John Deshon and Nathaniel Shaw, jr., both of New London,
and Captain Giles Hall of Norwich attended the meeting and offered
information and advice. A committee of four, consisting of two
members of the Council of Safety together with Deshon and Hall, was
appointed to visit the principal ports of the colony and ascertain
the terms upon which vessels, officers, and men might be had.[434]
On August 2 this committee reported that sundry vessels could be
obtained at reasonable prices, but that none of them were perfectly
adapted for vessels of war. The committee said that the people of the
colony disagreed as to the propriety of arming vessels; many thought
that it would be impossible for America to compare by sea with the
British, and that to attempt it would provoke insult and would
expose the seacoast and trade of Connecticut to increased danger;
but others thought that a naval armament would be an advantage, and
would afford protection to the colony. The Governor and Council
of Safety expressed a doubt whether they had a right to suspend
the measure of the General Assembly, even if they should think it
advisable. They now resolved to fit out an armed vessel, the brig
“Minerva,” of about 108 tons burden, belonging to Captain William
Griswold of Wethersfield; and to obtain a smaller and faster vessel
of some twenty-five tons burden to be employed as a “spy vessel, to
run and course from place to place, to discover the enemy, and carry
intelligence.” Captain Samuel Niles of Norwich was appointed captain
of the spy-vessel; and Benjamin Huntington of the Council of Safety
and John Deshon were appointed a committee to obtain, fit out, and
furnish it.[435]
On August 3 the Governor and Council of Safety appointed Captain
Giles Hall of Norwich captain and commander of the “Minerva.” A
pay-table and a small list of officers were now established. Captain
Hall was to receive a monthly salary of £7; the first lieutenant,
£5; the second lieutenant, and master, £4 each; seamen, £2, 5s.; and
marines, £2. Hall was instructed to raise forty seamen and forty
marines.[436]
When the committee for obtaining the spy-vessel reported on August
14, the Governor and Council of Safety resolved to buy the schooner
“Britannia,” belonging at Stonington, at a price not to exceed £200.
Robert Niles was made captain of the “Spy,” the name now given to the
schooner, in place of Samuel Niles.[437] The “Spy” was cruising early
in October, 1775, when she recaptured and brought into New London a
large ship containing eight thousand bushels of wheat,[438] the first
capture of the Connecticut navy.
By October the “Minerva” was ready for sea, and on the ninth of this
month, in response to a request of the Continental Congress, the
Governor and Council of Safety ordered this vessel to intercept
two transports bound from England for Quebec.[439] This detail was
not carried out by the “Minerva” for the very sufficient reason
“that all the hands or soldiers and marines on board, except about
10 or 12, being duly noticed of said orders, utterly declined and
refused to obey the same and perform said cruise,” which through
their disobedience wholly failed.[440] The Governor and Council of
Safety ordered the mutinous men discharged, and others enlisted in
their places; but before the “Minerva” was again ready for service,
the General Assembly in December directed Captain Hall to return his
vessel to its owner and dismiss his crew.
In December, 1775, the General Assembly deciding to increase the
naval forces of the colony, appointed Colonel David Waterbury of
Stamford and Captain Isaac Sears of New Haven to examine a certain
brigantine at Greenwich with a view to ascertaining its fitness for
the naval service; and it resolved to build or otherwise procure an
additional armed ship and four row-galleys “for the defence of this
and the neighboring colonies.” Waterbury and Sears reported that
the Greenwich brigantine was a new vessel which had made one voyage
to the West Indies, and that she would mount sixteen six-pounders
and twenty-four swivels.[441] The Governor and Council of Safety at
once purchased the brigantine, which they named the “Defence,” and
appointed Captain Seth Harding of Norwich to command her. By April,
1776, the “Defence” was manned and ready for sea.
On January 9, 1776, the Governor and Council of Safety appointed
Benjamin Huntington of the Council of Safety and Captain Seth Harding
a committee to visit Middletown and other towns on the Connecticut
river to ascertain the terms upon which the second vessel could
be purchased or built.[442] In the end the Governor and Council
of Safety decided to build a ship of 200 tons burden at Saybrook,
and they employed Captain Uriah Hayden at six shillings a day to
undertake the task.[443] The ship was built during the spring and
summer of 1776. An important event in the history of the “Oliver
Cromwell,” as the new ship was called, is thus chronicled in the
Connecticut Gazette of August 23, 1776, published at New London:
“Last Lord’s Day, the new Ship of War belonging to the State of
Connecticut, built at Say-Brook, and commanded by William Coit, Esq.,
came out of the River and arrived here Tuesday: she is the largest
Vessel that has ever come over Say Brook Bar, and was piloted by
Capt. James Harris.”[444]
Before building the row-galleys the Governor and Council of Safety
sent one builder to Philadelphia and another to Providence in order
to take advantage of the experiences of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island
in constructing this sort of craft. Of the four galleys ordered in
December, 1775, but three were built, the “Whiting” at New Haven, the
“Shark” at Norwich, and the “Crane” at East Haddam. They were rigged
as schooners; and by July, 1776, their construction was completed and
they were officered and manned.
The General Assembly permitted the Governor and Council of Safety a
free hand in their control of naval affairs. They were given full
power and authority to order, direct, furnish, and supply the navy,
during the recess of the General Assembly. It does not appear,
however, that the sessions of the General Assembly caused much
change in the management of the naval affairs. It was not in session
longer than a few weeks or a few days at a time. In October, 1776,
the General Assembly directed the Governor and Council of Safety to
execute and continue all naval business which they had begun, the
sessions of the Assembly notwithstanding.[445] Matters, which in
some states were determined by legislation, such as the establishing
of naval rules and regulations, the shares of prizes, and the naval
pay, were in Connecticut for the most part left to administrative
orders. In such work the Governor and Council of Safety often
followed Continental models. In July, 1776, they ordered Richard Law,
a member of the Council of Safety, to “compile a Code of Laws for
the Naval Service of this Colony, as much in conformity to the laws
of the naval service of the United Colonies as may consist with the
service of this colony.”[446]
The Governor and Council of Safety transacted the naval business,
as has already been seen, by means of committees of the Council of
Safety, naval agents, and mixed committees composed of members of the
Council of Safety and men from the outside. The sending of prizes
captured by Connecticut ships of war into the ports of Massachusetts,
and the refitting of the state’s vessels in Boston, necessitated the
employment of a naval agent in Massachusetts. In April, 1777, Samuel
Elliot of Boston was acting for the Governor and Council of Safety
in this capacity. In October, 1777, the General Assembly authorized
the appointment of a naval agent for Massachusetts, and on the 22nd
of this month the Governor and Council of Safety appointed Elliot
agent in all marine affairs to be transacted by Connecticut in
Massachusetts.[447]
During the Revolution the chief seaport of Connecticut was New
London, then one of the largest and most important towns in New
England. The most complete naval news of the time is to be found
in the Connecticut Gazette published at New London, and not in
the Hartford Courant, or in the New Haven paper, the Connecticut
Journal. New London was the naval station of the Connecticut fleet,
the port where it was refitted and repaired. One of the most
wealthy, influential, and public-spirited merchants of New London
was Nathaniel Shaw, jr. He was an ardent patriot and was on intimate
terms with Washington and other Revolutionary leaders.[448] The
Governor and Council of Safety naturally turned to Shaw when naval
duties were to be performed in New London. We have already seen that
Shaw was present at a meeting of the Council of Safety in July, 1775,
and was consulted on the initial naval project of the colony. From
1775 to 1779 the Governor and Council of Safety availed themselves
of his services in fitting out their naval vessels. In July, 1776,
they appointed him “Agent for the Colony, for the purpose of naval
supplies and for taking care of such sick seamen as may be sent on
shore to his care.”[449] In October, 1778, the General Assembly
appointed Shaw Marine Agent for Connecticut and authorized him to
equip the state vessels, to direct their cruises, and to receive and
sell their prizes, in all, taking the advice of the Governor and
Council of Safety from time to time.[450]
The Governor and Council of Safety showed an enterprising willingness
to experiment in naval warfare, when in February, 1776, they
permitted David Bushnell to explain to them his machine for
blowing up ships, and voted him £60 to complete his invention.[451]
Bushnell’s “American Turtle,” as his contrivance was called,
anticipated modern inventions in submarine warfare. It consisted
of a tortoise-shaped diving boat which could be propelled under
water. It contained a supply of air sufficient to last the operator
a half-hour, and was guided by means of a compass made visible by
phosphorus. Upon reaching the doomed vessel a screw was driven into
it by the operator. A magazine of powder was attached by a string to
the screw. The casting of the magazine from the diving-boat set going
a certain clock-work which gave the operator time to get beyond the
reach of danger before it ignited the powder. In 1777 a trial of the
“Turtle” against the British ship “Eagle,” 84, in New York Harbor was
unsuccessful. The operator succeeded in getting under the “Eagle,”
but was unable to drive the screw into her bottom.
Connecticut did not establish state privateering. In May, 1776,
the General Assembly authorized the Governor to fill out the blank
privateering commissions which the President of Congress should send
from time to time, and to deliver them to such persons as should
execute the bond prescribed by Congress.[452] A list of Connecticut
privateers in which some vessels are counted two or more times has
been made out. The totals of this list give 202 vessels, 1,609 guns,
and 7,754 men.[453] In order to enlist her quota of troops for the
Continental army, Connecticut in May, 1780, placed an embargo upon
privateers.[454] In May, 1776, the General Assembly, in pursuance
of the recommendations of the Continental Congress relative to the
establishment of admiralty courts by each state, vested the county
courts of Connecticut with the power to “try, judge, and determine,
by jury or otherwise, as in other cases, concerning all captures that
have or shall be taken and brought into said respective counties.”
The courts were to follow the rules of the civil law, the law of
nations, and the resolutions of Congress. Appeals were allowed to
the Continental Congress agreeable to its directions and resolves.
Connecticut was more liberal in granting appeals to Congress than
Massachusetts, which state, it will be recalled, permitted such
appeals only in cases of captures made by the vessels of the
Continental navy.[455]
The reader may recollect that on August 26, 1776, the Continental
Congress recommended that each state should grant certain pensions
to its citizens who should receive serious disabilities in the
Continental naval service. In May, 1777, the Connecticut General
Assembly granted such pensions; and in imitation of the resolutions
of Congress it granted half-pay to all officers, seamen, and marines
in the Connecticut navy, who were wounded in action so as to be
disabled from earning a livelihood; and a fraction of half-pay for
lesser disabilities.[456]
In October, 1777, the House of Representatives passed a bill
providing an elaborate list of rules and regulations relating to
naval discipline, naval courts-martial, pay of officers and seamen,
and the sharing of prizes. The bill, however, was rejected by the
Council.[457] In April, 1779, when too late to be of much service,
the General Assembly passed a statute creating a naval establishment,
which was modelled on that of Congress. Two scales of wages were
established, one for vessels under twenty guns, and the other for
vessels of twenty guns or upwards. Captains of the two classes
received a monthly wage, respectively, of $48 and $60; lieutenants
and masters, $24 and $30; and boatswains, $13 and $15. The wages for
seamen and marines did not vary, being $8 for seamen, and $6.67 for
marines. The sharing of prizes among officers and seamen varied for
the two classes. In general, the same offices were established as
in the Continental navy; there were, however, not so many of them.
Following the regulations of Congress, the General Assembly gave the
officers, seamen, and marines the whole of captured ships of war and
privateers, and one-half of all other vessels.[458]
Besides the vessels already mentioned, there were, in the Connecticut
navy, for a short time in 1777, the schooner “Mifflin” and the
sloop “Schuyler;” and for an equally brief period in 1779, the
sloop “Guilford.”[459] By far the most important vessels in the
navy were the “Oliver Cromwell”, 18, “Defence”, 14, and “Spy”, 6.
The principal cruising ground of the Connecticut vessels was in and
near Long Island Sound. This region was fairly alive with British
craft of all sorts. Long Island was a nest of Tories, and New York
was of course headquarters for the British in America. Connecticut,
being convenient to both places, found much service for her navy in
protecting her coasts and in preventing illicit trade with the enemy.
The cruises of the “Oliver Cromwell,” “Defence,” and “Spy” were
by no means confined to the waters near home. Several times they
visited the ports of Massachusetts. In the summer of 1777 the “Oliver
Cromwell” cruised to the northward of the Azores, in the path of
the homeward bound West Indiamen, where she captured and sent into
Massachusetts the brigantine “Honor” and the “Weymouth” packet. In
the spring of 1777 the “Defence” and a privateer met with success to
the windward of the Lesser Antilles in capturing British vessels
bound for the West Indies. In the following spring the “Oliver
Cromwell” and the “Defence” were cruising in the same region, where
they captured the letter of marque “Admiral Keppel,” eighteen
six-pounders, the most valuable prize taken by the Connecticut navy.
The “Admiral Keppel” and her cargo sold in Boston for £22,321. In
June and July, 1778, the “Oliver Cromwell” and the “Defence” refitted
in Charleston, South Carolina. Towards the end of July the “Oliver
Cromwell” sailed for Nantes with a load of indigo, which she expected
to exchange for clothing. Encountering a storm, this vessel was
dismasted, and forced to return to Connecticut. Some thirty prizes,
most of which reached safe ports, were captured during the Revolution
by the Connecticut navy.[460]
Upon the urgent and repeated solicitations of Washington, the three
Connecticut galleys were sent by the Governor and Council of Safety
in the summer of 1776 to New York to assist in the campaign on the
Hudson. The “Crane” and “Whiting,” after giving a good account of
themselves in an attack on two British vessels near Tarrytown, were
lost to the enemy in the fall of 1776. The “Shark” probably met a
similar fate.[461] The “Spy,” Captain Robert Niles, was one of
several vessels which were selected to carry to France the news of
the ratification by Congress of the French treaties of February,
1778. Captain Niles had the honor of reaching France first with his
important message and packet. On his return voyage Niles and his
vessel were captured. In March, 1779, the “Defence” struck on a
reef near Waterford, Connecticut, and sank.[462] On June 5, after a
severe fight to the southward of Sandy Hook, the “Oliver Cromwell”
surrendered to a superior force.[463] About July 1 the “Guilford,”
8, which had been recently added to the navy, was taken by the
enemy.[464] With the capture of this vessel, the navy of Connecticut
came to an end.
The warfare of “armed boats” participated in by Connecticut deserves
notice. During the Revolution much smuggling was carried on between
men in Connecticut and the British and Tories on Long Island and at
New York. The feeding of the British army at New York, the supplying
of the Tories on Long Island, and the demand for manufactured
articles in Connecticut, naturally made good markets. Political
law was in rivalry with economic law, and proved, in large part,
powerless. In 1778, 1779, and 1780, the Connecticut General Assembly
passed a number of stringent acts forbidding illicit commerce with
the enemy. Many patriot refugees had fled to Connecticut from Long
Island. Some of these men would obtain a license to return to their
former homes for their property, and under its cover would engage
in smuggling. To prevent this abuse, the General Assembly in April,
1779, recalled the power to issue licenses, which it had previously
vested in the selectmen of towns.[465]
Since the trade had assumed alarming proportions, the General
Assembly, in May, 1780, authorized the Governor and Council of Safety
to commission not more than twelve armed boats to suppress the
trade.[466] In October, Colonel William Ledyard, who was in command
of the forts at New London and Groton, was ordered to provide three
more whaleboats, besides the two which he already had obtained, to be
used in the Sound against the smugglers; and the Commandant of the
French navy at Newport was asked to send two vessels to aid in the
work.[467] These efforts of the state were in large part unavailing.
Some of the boats commissioned to stop the trade became participants
in it. “On consideration of the Many Evils committed by the armed
Boats in this State commissioned to cruise on their own acct. for
the pretended purpose of making captures on the enemy and preventing
illicit Trade and Traders,” the General Assembly on January 23, 1781,
revoked all the commissions which it had given to the armed boats.
A more successful attempt to stamp out the abuse was that made by
Norwich, in January, 1782. Certain associators agreed to hold no
social or commercial intercourse with those persons detected in
evading the laws. They provided boats which kept watch at suspected
places; smuggled goods, wherever found, were seized and sold, and the
proceeds were devoted to charitable purposes.[468]
FOOTNOTES:
[432] One must distinguish between the Council and Council of Safety.
A few members were common to both bodies.
[433] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 99-100. The published
Colonial and State Records of Connecticut to which I refer, consist
of two parts, the Records of the General Assembly, and the Journals
of the Council of Safety. The reader can easily tell from the context
to which part each reference refers.
[434] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 108, 109.
[435] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 109, 110.
[436] Ibid., 111-13.
[437] Ibid., 117.
[438] Connecticut Gazette, October 13, 1775.
[439] See Chapter I, Naval Committee, page 35; Colonial Records of
Connecticut, XV, 176.
[440] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 176.
[441] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 200-02.
[442] Ibid., 223-24.
[443] Ibid., 229, 232.
[444] Connecticut Gazette, August 23, 1776.
[445] Records of the State of Connecticut, I, 11.
[446] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 492.
[447] Records of State of Connecticut, I, 212, 214, 418, 452. This
is either Samuel Elliot, a Boston merchant, or Samuel Eliot, a most
distinguished Boston merchant, a benefactor of Harvard college,
and grandfather of the present President Eliot.—See New England
Historical and Genealogical Register, XXIII (1869), 338-39. I find
the agent’s name spelled Elliot, Eliott, and Eliot.
[448] Better evidence of the social standing of the Shaw family in
New London may not be needed than that afforded by the statistics
contained in the following newspaper clipping: “A great wedding
dance took place at New London at the house of Nathaniel Shaw, Esq.,
June 12, 1769, the day after the marriage of his son Daniel Shaw and
Grace Coit; 92 gentlemen and ladies attended, and danced 92 jigs, 52
contra-dances, 45 minuets, and 17 horn-pipes, and retired 45 minutes
past midnight.”—F. M. Caulkins, History of Norwich, Connecticut, 332.
[449] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 474.
[450] Records of State of Connecticut, II, 136.
[451] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 233-36. I have followed
the familiar accounts of this invention. Washington gave Jefferson an
account of Bushnell’s invention in September, 1785.-Ford, Writings of
Washington, X, 504-06.
[452] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 318-19.
[453] Records and Papers of New London County Historical Society, I,
pt. 4, p. 32.
[454] State Archives, Acts of Connecticut, May, 1780. The laying of
embargoes on privateers for short periods in order to obtain men for
different purposes was common during the Revolution.
[455] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 280-81.
[456] See Chapter IV, page 129; Records of State of Connecticut, I,
246-49.
[457] Connecticut Revolutionary Archives, VIII, 1777-1778.
[458] Records of State of Connecticut, II, 230-33.
[459] The vessels of the Connecticut navy with the approximate
periods of their service were as follows: Brigantine “Minerva,” 1775;
schooner “Spy,” 1775-1778; ship “Defence,” 1776-1779; ship “Oliver
Cromwell,” 1776-1779; galleys “Crane” and “Whiting,” 1776; galley
“Shark,” 1776-1777; schooner “Mifflin,” 1777; sloop “Schuyler,” 1777;
and sloop “Guilford,” 1779. The galley “New Defence,” belonging to
Branford, received arms, ammunition, and stores from the state. The
sloop “Dolphin,” a prize of the “Spy,” was purchased in the fall of
1777, and sent to Philadelphia for flour. The following captains were
the chief officers of the navy: Giles Hall, Robert Niles, William
Coit, Seth Harding, Timothy Parker, and Samuel Smedley. Coit had
commanded the “Harrison” in Washington’s fleet, and Harding was given
a commission in the Continental navy.
[460] Revolutionary Files of Connecticut Gazette, Hartford Courant,
and Connecticut Journal.
[461] Colonial Records of Connecticut, XV, 481, 488; Records of
State of Connecticut, I, 85, 201; Hartford Courant, August 12, 1776;
Connecticut in Revolution, 593-94.
[462] Records of State of Connecticut, II, 372; Wharton, Diplomatic
Correspondence, II, 642, 650; Hartford Courant, March 16, 1779.
[463] Hartford Courant, June 15, 1779.
[464] Records of State of Connecticut, II, 360.
[465] Records of State of Connecticut, II, 222.
[466] State Archives, Acts of Connecticut, May, 1780.
[467] Ibid., October, 1780.
[468] History of Norwich, F. M. Caulkins, 398.
CHAPTER XIII
THE NAVY OF PENNSYLVANIA
The two objects of Pennsylvania’s naval enterprises were the defence
of Philadelphia and the protection in Delaware river and bay of
the outward and inward bound trade of the state. These two needs
determined the form and size of her armed vessels and the character
of their operations. Pennsylvania therefore adapted her fleet to
shallow waters. Only in a few instances did her armed vessels pass
beyond the Capes of the Delaware into the Atlantic.
On July 5, 1775, the Pennsylvania Committee of Safety, the first
Revolutionary executive of this state, visited “Red Bank,” situated
a few miles below Philadelphia, near the mouth of the Schuylkill,
for the purpose of deciding on the character of the defences which
were to be made at this point on the river. On the 6th, having
returned to Philadelphia, the Committee reported the results of its
inspection; whereupon it came to its first naval resolution, that
Robert White and Owen Biddle be a committee for the construction of
boats and machines for the defence of the River.[469] On July 8 it
ordered John Wharton to immediately build a “Boat or Calevat,” 47 or
50 feet keel, 13 feet broad, and 4½ feet deep. By October, thirteen
such galleys or armed boats had been built, at a cost of about £550
each. They were armed chiefly with 18-pounders.[470] During the late
summer and the fall of 1775 the Committee of Safety attended to the
numerous details of officering, manning, arming, and provisioning
these galleys. It chose a captain and lieutenant for each of them;
and on October 23 it appointed Thomas Read commodore of the fleet. It
organized a naval staff consisting of a muster master, a pay master,
a surgeon, an assistant surgeon, a ship’s husband, and a victualer.
The distinguished scholar, Dr. Benjamin Rush, was made surgeon. The
Committee of Safety prepared a form of commission for officers, a
list of rules and regulations, general instructions for the captains,
and general instructions for the commodore.[471]
The rules and regulations of the Pennsylvania navy were concerned
with little else than the establishing of a penal code. All penal
offenses were to be tried by a court-martial, which, in capital
cases, was to consist of fifteen naval officers; and in all other
cases, of five officers, unless so many could not be assembled, when
it might consist of three. A majority of the court was sufficient to
convict, except in capital cases, where two-thirds were necessary.
In returning a verdict, the officers of lowest rank voted first.
Except in cases of mutiny, or of cowardice in time of action, all
sentences of death needed the approval of the General Assembly, or,
in its recess, of the Committee of Safety. Besides the death penalty,
a court-martial could inflict no punishment other than “degrading,
cashiering, drumming out of the fleet, whipping, not exceeding
thirty-nine lashes, fine, not exceeding two months’ pay, and
imprisonment, not exceeding one month.” All fines were to go to the
relief of those maimed and disabled in the service, or to the widows
and families of such as should be killed. These rules, apparently,
were not influenced by those of the Continental navy prepared by John
Adams.[472]
On November 7, 1775, the Committee of Safety decided to build a
ship for the service on the Delaware, which would mount twenty
18-pounders; and it appointed six of its members, among whom were
Robert Morris and John Nixon, a committee to build and arm the
vessel. This committee estimated that £9,000 would be necessary to
construct the ship. Later, owing to the unfitness of the season for
shipbuilding, it was authorized to purchase a vessel.[473] By April,
1776, it had obtained and equipped the ship “Montgomery,” and Thomas
Read had been given command of it. A number of small and unimportant
craft were gradually added to the navy. On December 28, 1775, Captain
John Hazelwood was appointed commander of ten fire-rafts. These rafts
were thirty-five feet long and thirteen feet wide, were loaded with
oil barrels, rosin casks, turpentine, brimstone, and various other
inflammables, and were designed to float down stream and set fire to
the enemy’s ships through direct contact.[474] An inventory of the
navy, dated August 1, 1776, shows the following vessels and men: the
ship “Montgomery,” 138 men; the floating battery “Arnold,” 82 men;
thirteen galleys, 35 men each; six guard boats, 12 men each; six
small vessels, including fire-ships, a total of 27 men. The total
number of officers, seamen, and marines was 768; the Pennsylvania
land forces at this time amounted to 1,365 men.[475] In August, 1776,
the schooner “Delaware” and the brig “Convention” were added; and in
the fall the “Putnam” floating battery.
I have found no mention of the uniform of the officers of the
Pennsylvania navy. The uniform of the Pennsylvania marines was “a
brown coat faced with green, letters 1. P. B. on the buttons, and a
cocked hat.” In October, 1776, the flag for the naval vessels had
not been provided. The following memorandum, taken from the minutes
of the Pennsylvania Navy Board of May 29, 1777, shows that flags had
then been procured: “An Order on William Webb to Elizabeth Ross, for
fourteen pounds twelve shillings and two pence, for Making Ships’
Colours etc.”[476]
The Committee of Safety was assisted and directed in its naval work
by committees of its own members, of which the principal ones are
as follows: “ship committee,” “armed boat committee,” “committee
for fitting out two of the armed boats,” “committee for building
two galleys for the Bay Service,” and “committee for fitting out
four guard boats to cruise at Cape May.” The Committee of Safety was
composed of twenty-five members, any seven of whom formed a quorum.
Benjamin Franklin was its first president. Robert Morris was for a
time its vice-president. In the absence of Franklin, Morris or John
Nixon often presided. On July 23, 1776, the Pennsylvania Convention
appointed a Council of Safety to succeed the Committee of Safety, a
succession which involved merely a change of personnel and of name.
From July 24, 1776, until March 4, 1777, when the Supreme Executive
Council, the executive under the first state constitution, assumed
control, the administration of the Pennsylvania navy was vested in
the Council of Safety.
Much difficulty was experienced by the several Pennsylvania
executives in finding suitable commodores for the fleet. The office
on October 23, 1775, first fell to Thomas Read. On January 13,
1776, Thomas Caldwell was made commodore; and on March 6, 1776,
Read was formally placed second in command. Failing in health,
Caldwell, on May 25, resigned, and on June 15 the Committee of
Safety appointed Samuel Davidson. This succession met with serious
and continued opposition on the part of the officers of the navy.
They declared that the appointment of Davidson violated the rule
of promotion according to seniority in service; and they made
vigorous remonstrances, which received countenance and support
from men of influence in Philadelphia. So serious was the clamor
and insubordination, that the Committee of Safety was compelled to
yield to the demands of a resolution of the Provincial Conference
of Committees, and remove Davidson from the command of all the
vessels except the ship “Montgomery” and the “Arnold” floating
battery. The Committee, however, in an “Address to the Inhabitants of
Pennsylvania,” upheld the propriety and justice of their appointment;
and it declared that by the support which the dissatisfied officers
had received “mutiny was justified and abetted and disobedience
triumphed over Authority.”[477]
When the Council of Safety assumed control of the navy on July 24,
1776, it found the spirit of dissatisfaction and insubordination so
strong among the naval officers that it removed Davidson from the
navy; at the same time, however, it declared that the charges made
against him were frivolous.[478] On September 2, 1776, the Council
of Safety gave Samuel Mifflin an opportunity to decline the office of
commodore. Thomas Seymour was named for the place on September 26,
1776. Early in 1777 Captain John Hazelwood, “Commander-in-Chief of
the Fire Vessels, Boats and Rafts belonging to the State,” objected
to being subject to the orders of Commodore Seymour, who was an old
man, infirm, and incapacitated for his position. On September 6,
1777, when Philadelphia was threatened by the British, Seymour was
discharged, and Hazelwood was appointed in his place.[479] Hazelwood
was the sixth commodore within less than two years.
The Committee of Safety and the Council of Safety passed a number of
resolutions fixing the naval pay. For a time the officers on board
the ship “Montgomery” and the two floating batteries were generally
paid larger wages than those on board the galleys. On February 22,
1777, the Council of Safety adopted a new pay-table, which gave
the same salary to officers of the same rank, on whatever vessel
employed. The monthly wages of the leading officers were as follows:
commodore, $75; captains, $48; first lieutenants, $30; second
lieutenants, $20; and surgeons, $48. Seamen were paid $12 a month. A
bounty of $12 was now given to recruits.[480] On June 25, 1777, the
salary of the commodore was raised to $125 a month.[481] On February
4, 1776, the Committee of Safety gave captors two-thirds of the
proceeds of the prizes taken on the Delaware river, and reserved the
remaining one-third for the maintenance of disabled sailors and the
widows and families of those who should be killed.[482]
Recognizing the navy’s need of a permanent body of administrators,
the Council of Safety on February 13, 1777, appointed a Navy Board
of six members who were authorized to take under their care all the
vessels of the navy. On February 19 four additional members were
added.[483] On March 13, 1777, the Supreme Executive Council, which
on March 4 had become the executive of the state, reconstituted the
naval board. It was now to consist of eleven members, any three of
whom formed a quorum. It was given “full power and authority to do
and perform all Matters and things Relating to the Navy of this
State, subject nevertheless to the directions and examinations of the
Council, from time to time, as we may judge expedient, and saving to
ourselves always the power of appointing officers.” William Bradford
and Joseph Blewer, who each served for a time as chairman of the
Board, were its most useful members. On the same day, March 13, the
Supreme Executive Council constituted a Board of War.[484]
The work of the Navy Board consisted of a great variety of details
relating to provisioning, arming, equipping, officering, and manning
the numerous craft of the navy. Soon after entering into office
it reported to the Council that it found the armed boats needing
repairs and alterations, and that owing to the better wages paid to
the seamen on board privateers there was a shameful deficiency in
the armed boats’ complement of men. The Board recommended the laying
of an embargo to prevent the sailing of private ships until the
navy should be recruited. It found that additional officers were
needed.[485] The Council immediately ordered the Board to appoint
the requisite number of warrant officers and to recommend proper
commissioned officers.
During 1777 the naval business of Pennsylvania was large and
complicated. A list of stores issued to the navy for one month during
the year contains the names of fifty-one vessels. Many of these are
minor and unimportant craft, such as half-galleys, fire-ships, and
accommodation sloops. A return of the Naval Department on February
1, 1777, shows 71 commissioned officers, 2 staff officers, 123
non-commissioned officers, and 513 privates; total officers and men
in the navy, 709. Many men who enlisted in the navy had little or no
experience at sea. The amount of the pay rolls for May, 1777, was
£6,325.[486]
The salient event in the history of the Pennsylvania navy was the
campaign on the Delaware river which followed the occupation of
Philadelphia by the British in September, 1777. Before this time the
navy had rendered miscellaneous services on the Delaware river and
bay, which had been useful though not at all brilliant. Now and then
some of the vessels were ordered down the river to protect incoming
and outgoing merchantmen, or to drive back the venturesome craft of
the enemy. On May 8, 1776, the galleys had a spirited engagement
with the “Roebuck,” 44, and the “Liverpool,” 28, in the Delaware
river near the mouth of Christiana Creek. Little injury was done on
either side. The British vessels returned to the Delaware Capes, and
the Americans returned to their station at Mud Island, which was
generally the headquarters for the state fleet.
The reader is familiar with the military movements of Howe during the
summer and fall of 1777; his irretrievable blunder in sailing from
New York for Philadelphia, instead of coöperating with Burgoyne in
the campaign on the Hudson; his landing with an army at the head of
Elk in Maryland late in August; his march to Philadelphia; and after
fighting the battle of Brandywine, his entry into that city late
in September. Upon occupying Philadelphia the British were forced
to open a communication with the sea. This was for the time being
prevented by the American defences at Mud Island and Red Bank just
below the mouth of the Schuylkill. Here were situated Forts Mercer
and Mifflin; and here were stationed the vessels of the Pennsylvania
and Continental navy under the command of Commodore Hazelwood. During
October and November, 1777, the Pennsylvania navy did its best
fighting and rendered its most valuable services. At this time the
Pennsylvania Navy Board made its headquarters near the fleet on board
the sloop “Speedwell.”
On October 22 and 23, when the British fleet below the American
defences on the Delaware attempted to pass them, Commodore Hazelwood
with two floating batteries and twelve galleys forced them to retire,
and succeeded in burning two of their vessels, the “Augusta,” 64,
and “Merlin,” 18, which ran aground. Congress voted Hazelwood an
elegant sword in recognition of his merit. On the fall of Forts
Mifflin and Mercer the American fleet was left without support. At
a council of war held on board the sloop “Speedwell” on November
19, it was decided to pass Philadelphia with the fleet in the night
and gain a point of safety to the northward of the city. Thirteen
galleys, twelve armed boats, the brig “Convention,” and a number of
minor craft passed the city without receiving a shot. Before the ship
“Montgomery,” schooner “Delaware,” floating batteries “Arnold” and
“Putnam,” and several Continental vessels could get under sail, the
wind died away; and thus becalmed it was found necessary to set fire
to them in order to prevent their capture.[487]
On October 11, 1777, Commodore Hazelwood reported a capture of
fifty-eight prisoners. About seventy men were killed or wounded in
the different actions of the navy in the fall of 1777. Hazelwood
wrote in October, 1777, that he had lost two hundred and fifty men
through desertion owing to their cowardice and disaffection; and in
February, 1778, that a great many men had run away since he had been
in winter quarters.[488]
Several cases of the desertion of commissioned officers which
took place during the campaign on the Delaware, were tried by
courts-martial during the summer of 1778. First Lieutenant Samuel
Lyon of the “Dickinson” galley was charged with deserting his vessel
and going over to the enemy with seven men. Lyon pleaded guilty to
the charge, and a court of fifteen fellow officers sentenced him “to
suffer Death by being Shott.” On September 1 Lyon, together with
Samuel Ford, a lieutenant lately attached to the “Effingham” galley
who also had been convicted of desertion, were executed on one of
the guard boats in the Delaware. The first conviction for a capital
crime in the Pennsylvania navy is said to have been made in the case
of the boatswain of the “Montgomery,” who was sentenced to death
for desertion on June 25, 1778. On the trial of John Lawrence for
desertion, a gunner on board the “Dickinson” galley, the accused
acknowledged that he “took the Oath of Allegiance to the King of
Great Britain, and received three and a half Guineas for his share
of the Boat and Arms,” which he assisted in carrying to the enemy.
The court sentenced him to “suffer Death by being hung with a Rope
around his Neck till he is Dead, Dead, Dead.” Lawrence together with
the lieutenant of the galley “Ranger” were reprieved on September 1,
1778.[489] These desertions from the Pennsylvania navy are but one
instance of many which prove that it was without _esprit de corps_,
and that its officers and men were often raw, undisciplined, and
insubordinate. Used to a free and easy life, they did not take kindly
to the routine and discipline of the naval service.
During the winter of 1777-1778 when the British were in Philadelphia,
the navy and Navy Board were some miles up the Delaware. A few
members of the Board continued to hold its sessions at Bordentown,
Trenton, or other convenient points. The navy was disorganized
at this time, and the work of the Board was naturally dull and
disheartening. In January, 1778, William Bradford, its chairman,
wrote from Trenton to President Wharton of the Supreme Executive
Council: “I am left here alone, none of the Board being with me. I
am also tired of being here, had much rather be in action with the
Militia.”[490]
In April, 1778, the Navy Board, acting reluctantly on Washington’s
advice who feared that the British would make a raid and capture the
fleet, dismantled and sank all or nearly all of the state craft in
the Delaware river.[491] On May 8 the British made their expected
foray on the shipping to the northward of Philadelphia, and destroyed
some forty-five vessels, among which were the two Continental
frigates, “Effingham” and “Washington,” and probably a few of the
minor craft belonging to the Pennsylvania navy.[492]
As soon as the British received intelligence of the sailing of a
French fleet under D’Estaing for America, they prepared to evacuate
Philadelphia. In anticipation of this event Hazelwood was in June
raising and refitting his fleet, and wishing that he had it in his
“power to give the enemy a scouring before they got out of the
river.” On July 19 he reported his vessels afloat and ready for use.
Already the Supreme Executive Council had ordered the navy to be put
into commission, and the brig “Convention” to make a cruise down the
Bay.
The Pennsylvania navy had cost the state at the rate of £100,000
a year.[493] It had been serviceable in defending the Delaware,
but it had in the end failed to hold it. Always hampered by a lack
of seamen, of naval supplies, and of an armed force comparable to
that of the enemy, the Navy Board found the greatest difficulty in
enforcing the orders of the Council. It was naturally blamed for a
part of the inactivity and the misfortunes of the fleet. Since the
British had abandoned Philadelphia, and a strong French fleet was
in American waters, the need for a naval defence of the Delaware
seemed more remote than it did in the first years of the Revolution.
These considerations moved the Supreme Executive Council on August
14, 1778, to recommend to the General Assembly the dismissal of the
Navy Board, and all the officers and men of the navy, except those
that were necessary to man two or three galleys, two or three guard
boats, and the brig “Convention.” The General Assembly at once
agreed to the recommendation. Finally, on Friday, December 11, the
following vessels were sold at the “Coffee House” in Philadelphia:
“Ten galleys, Nine armed Boats, the Brig ‘Convention,’ the sloops
‘Speedwell,’ ‘Sally,’ ‘Industry,’ and ‘Black Duck;’ and the schooner
‘Lydia.’”[494]
In March, 1779, there remained in the navy six small craft,
namely, the galleys “Franklin,” “Hancock,” and “Chatham,” and the
armed boats, “Lion,” “Fame” and “Viper;” and there were still in
commission five captains, six lieutenants, and one hundred and
eighteen men.[495] This little fleet was quite insufficient to
protect the commerce of the state. In March, 1779, the Supreme
Executive Council, in response to a petition from the merchants of
Philadelphia praying for the protection of their trade, purchased
the ship “General Greene,” at a cost of £53,000; and placed it in
charge of two agents, who were to fit it for sea, and receive and
dispose of its prizes. Part of the money which was used in fitting
the “General Greene,” 14, was raised by private subscription. During
the summer and fall of 1779 the new ship, under the command of
Captain James Montgomery, cruised along the Atlantic coast between
Sandy Hook and the Virginia Capes either alone, in company with the
Continental frigates, “Boston,” “Deane,” and “Confederacy,” or in
company with the well-known Philadelphia privateer, “Holker.” The
“General Greene” was quite fortunate, as she sent into Philadelphia
six prizes. In the spring before a full complement of men could
be enlisted, President Reed of the Supreme Executive Council was
compelled to lay an embargo on privateers. Her crew were a mutinous
rabble. In June Captain Montgomery wrote that he had arrived at New
Castle with a “Great number of Prisoners on board and a Great Part of
my own Crew Such Villons that they would be glad of an opportunity
to take the Ship from me. Som of the Ringleaders I have sent up in
Irons.” On October 27 the Council ordered the “General Greene” to be
sold, as this was more economical than laying her up for the winter.
Her sale, much below her real value, aroused suspicions of collusion
and corruption.[496]
Naval legislation in Pennsylvania was not extensive. In 1775, 1776,
and 1777 almost all naval rules and provisions were established by
executive decrees. Before the middle of January, 1776, the Committee
of Safety had established courts for the trying of prize cases.[497]
It permitted appeals from the state prize courts to Congress. On
September 9, 1778, however, the General Assembly established a Court
of Admiralty. A law passed in 1780 provided that a judge of admiralty
should be appointed and commissioned for seven years by the Supreme
Executive Council.[498] On September 17, 1777, an act was passed
for the relief of officers, seamen and marines, who, being in the
service of the United States and residents of Pennsylvania, should
be disabled from earning a livelihood. In all probability this was
passed in accordance with the recommendations of the Continental
Congress of August 26, 1776. On March 1, 1780, the General Assembly
granted officers, seamen, and marines in the Pennsylvania navy, who
were in actual service on March 13, 1779, and who should continue
therein until the end of the war, half-pay for life.[499]
It is believed that Pennsylvania did not establish state
privateering. Her executives in commissioning privateers in all
probability followed the regulations of Congress. The Pennsylvania
Archives contain a list of 448 privateering commissions issued for
the years from 1776 to 1782. Most of the privateers were small
vessels, mounting six to twelve cannon, and carrying twenty-five to
fifty men. Out of the 448 commissions, only 14 commissions were for
vessels mounting twenty or more guns. In 1779 Pennsylvania issued
commissions for one hundred different vessels.[500]
The spring of 1782 was marked by a renewal in naval enterprise
similar to that in the spring of 1779. Armed ships, refugee boats,
and picaroon privateers fitted out at New York, had been greatly
distressing the shipping and trade of Philadelphia. Within eight
months the British frigate “Medea” had taken nine Philadelphia
privateers; the whale-boat “Trimmer” from New York had been very
destructive to the shipping on the Delaware; and the British naval
ship “General Monk,” formerly the American privateer “Washington,”
was inflicting serious losses on Pennsylvania’s commerce.[501] The
merchants and traders of Philadelphia now appealed by petition to the
General Assembly for protection. Accordingly, on April 9, that body
appointed three commissioners to procure and equip a naval armament
for the defence of Delaware river and bay. The commissioners were
authorized to borrow £50,000, which was to be repaid from certain old
tonnage and impost duties, and from a new impost on certain specified
articles. The act also provided for a distribution of the proceeds of
prizes. This act is significant in its being the first instance where
the General Assembly authorized a naval increase and appointed a
committee to take charge of naval vessels. It met with considerable
disfavor. The Supreme Executive Council informed the General
Assembly that it considered the appointment of commissioners and the
conferring upon them of full administrative powers unconstitutional
and an encroachment of the legislative on the administrative
body.[502]
Anticipating the act of the legislature, the merchants of
Philadelphia had fitted out the ship “Hyder Ally,” 18, and had
appointed Lieutenant Joshua Barney of the Continental navy to command
her. Proceeding down the Bay, Barney on April 8 made his memorable
capture of the “General Monk,” 18, Captain Josias Rogers. Both the
“Hyder Ally” and the “General Monk” were now taken into the service
of the state. The “General Monk,” which was renamed the “Washington,”
was in May, 1782, loaned to Robert Morris, the Continental Agent
of Marine, who sent her on a commercial errand to the West Indies.
On the return of the “Washington” Morris purchased her for the
service of Congress. The “Hyder Ally” under different commanders
cruised for the rest of the year with little success. In December
the commissioners obtained permission from the Supreme Executive
Council to sell her, and build a vessel of more suitable construction
for the defence of the Delaware, for which purpose they were already
equipping an armed schooner. When the “Hyder Ally” was offered for
sale, the commissioners bid her in for the state, as the bidders
refused to give her full value.[503]
The establishment of officers and seamen on board the “Hyder Ally”
and the “Washington” was a new one. On February 13, 1781, the
officers and seamen of the first establishment were all discharged,
except Captain Boys and certain disabled seamen; and on December 20
Boys was dismissed, since the service in which he was engaged was
at an end.[504] When peace was declared in the spring of 1783, a
few men were probably in naval employ under the new establishment.
That the state still owned a few small vessels is certain. On April
10, 1783, the Supreme Executive Council endorsed a letter from
the commissioners saying “that as no doubt appears to remain that
Hostilities are ceased, we conceive it our Duty to request your
permission to dispose of the Armed vessels under our direction
belonging to the State, in order to enable us to close our accounts
with the Public.”[505]
FOOTNOTES:
[469] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, X, Minutes of Committee of
Safety, July 4, 6, 8, 1775.
[470] Pennsylvania Archives 2nd, I, 246; Wallace’s William Bradford,
203.
[471] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, X, Minutes of Committee of
Safety, August 26, September 1, October 2, 12, 16, 23, November 6,
1775. See also the Minutes of the Committee of Safety for each day of
this period.
[472] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, X, Minutes of Committee of
Safety, August 29, 1775.
[473] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, X, Minutes of Committee of
Safety, November 7, November 10, 1775.
[474] Ibid., December 28, 1775; Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd, I, 248,
note.
[475] Pennsylvania Archives, 1st, V, 3-5. The names of the thirteen
galleys were as follows: “Bull Dog,” “Burke,” “Camden,” “Chatham,”
“Congress,” “Dickinson,” “Experiment,” “Effingham,” “Franklin,”
“Hancock,” “Ranger,” “Warren,” and “Washington.” The “Delaware” and
“Convention” were at times referred to as galleys.
[476] Pennsylvania Archives, 1st, V, 46; 2nd, I, Minutes of
Pennsylvania Navy Board, May 29, 1777; 2nd, I, 251.
[477] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, X, Minutes of Committee
of Safety, July 2, 1776; Proceedings of Provincial Conference of
Committees of Pennsylvania, June 23, June 24, 1776.
[478] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, X, Minutes of Council of
Safety, August 22, August 27, 1776.
[479] Ibid., XI, Minutes of Supreme Executive Council, September 6,
1777.
[480] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, XI, Minutes of Council of
Safety, February 22, 1777.
[481] Ibid., Minutes of Supreme Executive Council, June 25, 1777.
[482] Ibid., X, Minutes of Committee of Safety, February 4, 1776.
[483] Ibid., XI, Minutes of Council of Safety, February 13, February
19, 1777.
[484] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, XI, Minutes of Supreme
Executive Council, March 13, 1777. The members of the Navy Board as
constituted by the Supreme Executive Council were as follows: Andrew
Caldwell, Joseph Blewer, Joseph Marsh, Emanuel Eyre, Robert Ritchie,
Paul Cox, Samuel Massey, William Bradford, Thomas Fitzsimmons, Samuel
Morris, jr., and Thomas Barclay.
[485] Captains Nicholas Biddle, Thomas Read and Charles Alexander,
and Lieutenant James Josiah resigned from the Pennsylvania navy to
enter the Continental navy.
[486] Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd, I, 416-24.
[487] Wallace’s William Bradford, 252-53, 366-67; Pennsylvania
Archives, 1st, VI, 21, 47-50.
[488] Pennsylvania Archives, 1st, V, 663, 721; VI, 235; VII, 165.
[489] Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd, I, 425-31.
[490] Pennsylvania Archives, 1st, VI, 204.
[491] Ibid., 332-33.
[492] Almon’s Remembrancer, 1778, 148-50.
[493] Scharf and Westcott, History of Philadelphia, I, 300.
[494] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, XI, Minutes of Supreme
Executive Council, August 14, August 16, December 9, 1778. The
capture of the sloop “Active” by the “Convention” in the fall
of 1778, gave rise to the most celebrated prize case of the
Revolution.—Jameson, Essays in Constitutional History of United
States, 17-21.
[495] Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd, I, 255.
[496] Pennsylvania Archives, 1st, VII, 320, 476; Colonial Records of
Pennsylvania, XI, 724, 750; XII, 150; Scharf and Westcott, History of
Philadelphia, I, 403.
[497] J. F. Jameson, Essays in Constitutional History of United
States, 9.
[498] Laws of Pennsylvania, September 9, 1778, March 8, 1780.
[499] Ibid., September 17, 1777; March 1, 1780.
[500] Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd, I, 388-402.
[501] Scharf and Westcott, History of Philadelphia, I, 421-22.
[502] Laws of Pennsylvania, April 9, April 15, 1782; Mary Barney,
Memoirs of Commodore Barney, 303-04. Pennsylvania Archives, 1st, IX,
531-32. The three Commissioners were John Patton, Francis Gurney, and
William Allibone.
[503] Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, XIII, Minutes of Supreme
Executive Council, December 6, 1782.
[504] Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd, I, 256.
[505] Ibid., 1st, X, 26.
CHAPTER XIV
THE NAVY OF VIRGINIA
In July, 1775, Virginia began to raise and officer an army of more
than one thousand men. By fall Lord Dunmore, the Provincial Governor
of Virginia, who in June had retreated to His Majesty’s ship “Fowey”
at Yorktown, had collected a small flotilla, and had begun a series
of desultory attacks upon the river banks of Virginia. On October
25 he was repulsed at Hampton; on December 9 he was beaten by the
Virginia patriots at Great Ridge; and on January 1 he burned Norfolk.
His movements excited so much alarm that the leading patriot families
on the James, York, Rappahannock, and Potomac rivers retreated inland
for safety. In order to prevent the depredations of Lord Dunmore,
and to provide effectually for the general defence of the state, the
Virginia Provincial Convention in December authorized the Committee
of Safety of the state “to provide from time to time such and so
many armed vessels as they may judge necessary for the protection
of the several rivers in this colony, in the best manner the
circumstances of the country will admit.” The Committee of Safety was
further directed to raise a sufficient number of officers, sailors,
and marines; and settle their pay, which was not to exceed certain
specified rates. The maximum wage of “the chief commander of the
whole as commodore” was fixed at fifteen shillings a day.[506]
Between December, 1775, and July, 1776, the Committee of Safety
procured and established a small navy. On April 1 it fixed the naval
pay, generally at the maximum rates permitted. Captains in the navy
were to receive a daily wage of 8s.; captains of marines, 6s.;
midshipmen, 3s.; marines, 1s., 6d. The Committee resolved that two
years ought to be a maximum period of service. It appointed a number
of the most prominent officers in the Virginia navy, among whom
were Captains James Barron, Richard Barron, Richard Taylor, Thomas
Lilly, and Edward Travis. It fixed the relative rank between army
and navy officers. It purchased the boats “Liberty” and “Patriot,”
the brigs “Liberty” and “Adventure,” and the schooner “Adventure.”
It contracted for the construction of a number of galleys on the
different rivers of the state.[507]
George Mason and John Dalton were appointed a committee to build two
row-galleys, and buy three cutters for the defence of the Potomac. In
April, 1776, Mason wrote that the galleys were well under way, and
that three small vessels had been purchased, of which the largest was
a fine stout craft of about 110 tons burden, mounting fourteen 8’s
and 4’s, carrying ninety-six men, and named the “American Congress.”
A company of marines for this vessel, he said, were being exercised
in the use of the great guns.[508] The Committee of Safety chose a
“Lieutenant of Marines in the Potomac river Department.”
The Provincial Convention of Virginia, which met at Williamsburg
on May 6, 1776, being convinced that the naval preparations would
be conducted more expeditiously and successfully if proper persons
were appointed to superintend and direct the same, chose a Board of
Naval Commissioners, consisting of five persons.[509] The Board
was authorized to appoint a clerk and assistants, and to elect from
their membership a First Commissioner of the Navy—the title of a
well-known officer in the English naval service. No member of the
Board could sit in the legislature or hold a military office. Each
Commissioner was to receive twenty shillings a day, when employed. On
the depreciation of the currency this was doubled.[510] A majority
of the Board constituted a quorum. Thomas Whiting served as First
Commissioner of the Board throughout its existence.
In general, the business of the Navy Board was “to superintend and
direct all matters and things to the navy relating.” It had charge of
the building, purchase, fitting, arming, provisioning, and repairing
of all armed vessels and transports. It had charge of the shipyards
and the public rope-walk. In case of vacancies in the navy or marines
it recommended officers to the Governor and Council. It could suspend
an officer for neglect of duty or for misbehavior. It was to keep
itself informed on the state of the navy through reports from the
naval officers. It was authorized to draw warrants on the treasury
for money expended in the naval department, and to audit the naval
accounts.
The Navy Board had charge of naval affairs in Virginia for three
years, from the summer of 1776 until the summer of 1779. During 1776
and 1777 vessels were built on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, on the
Potomac, Rappahannock, Mattapony, Chickahominy, and James rivers,
and at Portsmouth, Gosport, and South Quay. After 1777 vessels were
chiefly built at the Chickahominy and Gosport shipyards. No other
state owned so much land, property, and manufactories, devoted to
naval purposes, as Virginia. In April, 1777, the Navy Board purchased
115 acres of land, for £595, on the Chickahominy, twelve miles from
its confluence with the James.[511] On this site was located the
Chickahominy shipyard. Virginia’s ships found here a safer retreat
than at Gosport, which lay convenient for the enemy’s ships. It is
said that before the Revolution the British had established a marine
yard at Gosport, and named it for Gosport, England, where many
supplies for the Royal Navy were manufactured. In some way Virginia
came into possession of the shipyard at this place.[512] Two ships
were built for the defence of Ocracoke Inlet, the chief entrance to
Albemarle Sound, at South Quay, on the Blackwater, a few miles north
of the North Carolina line.
At Warwick, on the James, a few miles below Richmond, the state
built and operated a rope-walk. The state owned a manufactory of
sail-duck and a foundry. In July, 1776, four naval magazines were
established, one each for the James, York, Rappahannock, and Potomac
rivers. For each magazine one or two agents were appointed to collect
and issue provisions, ships’ supplies, and naval stores.[513] For
the location of the magazine on the Potomac the General Assembly
authorized the Navy Board to purchase an acre of land at the head of
“Potomack Creek.”[514] In January, 1777, the Navy Board appointed
James Maxwell, Naval Agent, to superintend the shipyards, and the
building, rigging, equipping, and repairing of the naval vessels. He
was to follow the instructions of the Board, and keep it informed on
the state of the navy.[515] Maxwell’s annual salary was £300, payable
quarterly. He lived at the Chickahominy shipyard.
Virginia had a naval staff consisting of pay masters, muster
masters, surgeons, and chaplains. The captains and recruiting
officers enlisted seamen. Their task was rendered difficult, not
so much because of the superior attractions of privateering, as in
New England, as because of the small number of seamen resident in
the state. The first commodore of the Virginia navy was John Henry
Boucher. He was serving as lieutenant in the Maryland navy, when,
in March, 1776, Virginia called him to the command of her Potomac
fleet, and soon promoted him to the head of her navy.[516] He served
as commodore for only a few months, resigning in November, 1776.
Walter Brooke was commodore from April, 1777, until September, 1778.
Brooke’s successor, James Barron, was not appointed until July, 1780;
he served until the end of the war. The commodore of the navy made
his headquarters regularly at or about Hampton, and superintended the
armed vessels in that part of the state.[517]
In Virginia, as in the other states and in the Continental Congress,
naval enthusiasm and interest was at its height in 1776. In the
fall the Navy Board contracted for the building of twenty-four
small transports.[518] The General Assembly in its October session
authorized the Navy Board to construct two frigates of thirty-two
guns each, and four large galleys, adapted “for river or sea
service.” For manning these galleys and those already building, the
Navy Board was empowered to raise thirteen hundred men, exclusive
of officers, to serve three years from March 3, 1777. It was to
recommend proper officers to the Governor and Council. Having been
commissioned by the Governor, the officers were to enlist the crews
for their respective galleys. Since to secure a sufficient number of
experienced seamen would be impossible, it was provided that each
crew should consist of three classes of men: able seamen, at a daily
wage of 3s.; ordinary seamen, at 2s.; and common landsmen, at 1s.,
6d. As the men in the second and third classes became proficient,
they were to be promoted. Every recruit was given a bounty of
$20.[519]
The Provincial Convention, in its December session in 1775, erected
a Court of Admiralty, consisting of three judges, to enforce the
Continental Association against trading with England. In its May
session in 1776, it gave this court jurisdiction over all captures
of the enemy’s vessels. The General Assembly, at its October session
in 1776, superseded all previous admiralty legislation by an “Act
for Establishing a Court of Admiralty.” Such court was to consist
of three judges, elected by joint ballot of the two houses of the
General Assembly. The judges were to hold their offices “for so long
time as they shall demean themselves well therein.” The court, which
was to be held at some place to be fixed by the General Assembly,
was to have cognizance of “all causes heretofore of admiralty
jurisdiction in this country.” Its proceedings and decisions were
to be governed by the regulations of the Continental Congress, the
acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, the English statutes
prior to the fourth year of the reign of James, and by the laws of
Oleron and the Rhodian and Imperial laws, so far as they have been
heretofore observed in the English courts of admiralty. In cases
which related to captures from a public enemy with whom the United
States should be at war, and in which a conflict should arise between
the regulations of Congress and the acts of the General Assembly, the
regulations of Congress should take precedence; in all other cases
of conflict, the acts of Virginia were to prevail. This provision is
of particular interest. It is one of the first instances in which
a state recognized the superiority of federal law when in conflict
with state law. Virginia was liberal in granting appeals to Congress,
as she permitted them in all cases of the capture of the enemy’s
vessels.[520]
The Admiralty Court of Virginia tried few prize cases. Governor
Thomas Jefferson in writing to the President of Congress in June,
1779, no doubt understates the truth when he says that “a British
prize would be a more rare phenomenon here than a comet, because
one has been seen, but the other never was.” His state, he said,
had long suffered from a lack of blank letters of marque, and he
wished fifty to be sent to him.[521] Virginia did not establish
state privateering, but followed the regulations of Congress on the
subject. Because of the lack of seamen and the continual presence
of the enemy’s vessels at the mouths of the Virginia rivers, the
privateering interest was not important in this state.
The Navy Board superintended both the trading and armed vessels of
the state until April, 1777, when the trading vessels were placed in
charge of William Aylett.[522] Writers on the Virginia navy have not,
as a rule, distinguished one class of vessels from the other, nor is
it always easy to do so. During 1776 seven vessels were employed
chiefly in commerce.[523] In the fall, most of them were ordered to
the West Indies with cargoes of flour and tobacco; one, the brig
“Adventure,” was directed to proceed to Dunkirk, France. The armed
fleet for 1776 consisted of sixteen small craft adapted chiefly for
service in the rivers of Virginia and in Chesapeake Bay.[524] In
1777 the galleys “Accomac” and “Diligence” were built and stationed
on the Eastern Shore; and the ships “Caswell” and “Washington” were
built at South Quay on the Blackwater, for the defence of Ocracoke
Inlet, which Virginia was undertaking jointly with North Carolina.
Besides these four vessels, two brigs, one armed boat, and the ships
“Gloucester,” “Protector,” “Dragon,” and “Tartar,” were this year
added to the navy. In 1778 an armed boat and the ships “Tempest”
and “Thetis” were built; and in 1779 two armed boats, the brig
“Jefferson” and the ship “Virginia,” were added.[525]
This fleet is formidable only in its enumeration. It was poorly
armed, incompletely manned, and in almost every respect ill fitted
for service. But few of its vessels went beyond the Chesapeake Bay.
It showed most activity during 1776 and the spring of 1777. From 1775
until 1779 fifteen small prizes were captured. In May, 1776, Captain
Taylor seized four small merchantmen; in June, one of the Barrons
brought up to Jamestown the transport “Oxford,” with 220 Highlanders
on board; in the spring of 1777 the “Mosquito,” Captain Harris,
carried into St. Pierre the ship “Noble,” valued at 75,000 livres;
and a few months earlier the brig “Liberty” captured the ship “Jane,”
whose cargo of West India goods was valued at £6,000. These were the
most fortunate captures made by the Virginia navy.[526]
Virginia’s naval craft met with the usual misfortunes. During
the first half of 1777 His Majesty’s ship “Ariadne” captured the
“Mosquito.” About the same time the frigate “Phœnix” took the
“Raleigh.” The British made two raids into Virginia which were
destructive both to the shipping of the state and to private
individuals. The first was ordered by Clinton in the spring of 1779;
the troops were under the command of Matthews and Collier. At the
Gosport shipyard they destroyed five uncompleted vessels, three
of which were frigates, besides a large quantity of masts, yards,
timber, plank, iron, and other ships’ stores. The shipyards on the
Nansemond were looted; and twenty-two vessels with a considerable
quantity of powder were taken or destroyed on the “South Branch of
the navy.” Suffolk was burned, and upwards of two thousand barrels of
Continental pork and fifteen hundred barrels of flour were destroyed.
In all one hundred and thirty vessels were burned.[527] The raid of
Arnold and Phillips will be considered later.
The General Assembly at its May session in 1779 discontinued the Navy
Board, and vested its strictly naval duties with the newly created
Board of War, consisting of five members. The Board of War was
empowered to appoint a Naval Commissioner. A Board of Trade was now
given charge of the trading vessels of the state, and of the state
manufactories of military supplies.[528]
The General Assembly in its May session, 1780, “for the purpose
of introducing oeconomy into all the various departments of
government, and for conducting the publick business with the greatest
expedition,” abolished the Boards of War and Trade, and authorized
the Governor to appoint a Commissioner of War, a Commercial Agent,
and coördinate with these two, a Commissioner of the Navy. This act
is the outgrowth of the same movement for economy and efficiency in
administration, which resulted in the establishment in January and
February, 1781, of the single-headed executive departments of the
Continental Congress. The salary of the Commissioner of the Navy was
fixed at thirty thousand pounds of tobacco a year, and that of his
clerk at ten thousand pounds.[529] The Commissioner was to be under
the “controul and direction of the governour and council.” Governor
Jefferson appointed James Maxwell, the naval agent under the Navy
Board, Commissioner of the Navy.
The General Assembly in the May session of 1779, as an inducement
to enlistment, granted seamen and marines additional bounties and
pensions. Recruits entering for the rest of the war were now to
receive $750 and one hundred acres of land. They were to be furnished
upon enlistment, and once a year thereafterwards, with a complete
suit of clothes. Naval officers were entitled to a “grant of the like
quantity of lands as is allowed to officers of the same rank in the
Virginia regiments on continental establishment.” Disabled sailors
and the widows of the slain were entitled to immediate relief, and
an annual pension. At the October session of this year, moved by the
need for money and the impossibility of fitting out the whole fleet,
the General Assembly ordered the governor to sell nine of the armed
vessels, and to equip and man the remaining six with all diligence.
For some reason the governor did not carry out the order. There was
probably little market for the vessels.[530]
The years 1780 and 1781 were marked by a renewed naval activity in
Virginia. It is recalled that the theater of war had now shifted
to the Southern states. Savannah was in the hands of the enemy.
Charleston surrendered in May, 1780. By the fall of that year the
lowlands of the states to the south of Virginia were generally in the
possession of the British. Apparently Virginia would be the next to
feel the rough hand of the conquering enemy. British privateers and
naval craft lay off the mouths of the Virginia rivers, and captured
all her vessels that ventured towards the Bay or the sea. Early in
1780 it was apprehended that the enemy meditated an invasion of the
coasts of the state.
When the General Assembly came together in May, 1780, it at once
took measures for the protection of the coasts. It passed “an act
for putting the eastern frontier of this commonwealth into a posture
of defence.” This act, after providing for calling out the militia
in the seaport counties, ordered the Governor and Council to direct
the Commissioner of the Navy to immediately make ready for service
in the Bay and on the seacoast the ships “Thetis,” “Tempest,” and
“Dragon,” the brig “Jefferson,” and the galleys “Henry,” “Accomac,”
and “Diligence.” Three hundred marines, to be commanded by five
captains and fifteen lieutenants, were to be recruited. Marines and
sailors who enlisted for three years were to receive a bounty of
$1,000. Naval officers were put upon the same footing in regard to
pay, rations, and privileges as officers of the same rank in the land
service.[531]
When the Legislature came together in October, since the situation
was still more critical, it was moved to pass an additional act for
the defence of the seacoast. This act shows that the navy was in sore
need for seamen and money. It provided drastic measures to obtain
both. Naval officers were now authorized, under certain restrictions
and limitations, to impress seamen. The eastern counties of the state
were directed to bind to the sea, “under the most prudent captains
that can be procured to take them,” one-half of all orphans of
certain descriptions living below the falls of the Virginia rivers. A
hospital for seamen was established at Hampton, to be maintained by a
tax of nine pence a month on the salaries of all mariners and seamen
in either the navy or the merchant service of the state. Officers
and seamen were given the whole of their captures; and still other
inducements to enlistment by way of pay and clothing were held out.
Two new galleys, of the same construction as those built by Congress
in 1776, carrying two 32’s at the bow and at the stern, and 6’s at
the sides, were ordered for the defence of the Chesapeake. Five
vessels of the state fleet were to be immediately made ready for
service; and all the other naval vessels were to be sold and the
proceeds devoted to naval purposes. For the use of the navy import
duties were laid upon rum, gin, brandy, and other spirits; on
wine, molasses and sugar; and on all imported dry goods, except
salt, munitions of war, and iron from Maryland. Tonnage was laid
upon merchant vessels. Despite these efforts few seamen and little
money were raised, and the fleet during 1780 accomplished almost
nothing.[532]
The salient event in the history of the Virginia navy in 1781 was
the invasion of Arnold and Phillips during the first half of the
year. Arnold was first reported on the coast of Virginia on December
29, 1780, when his fleet consisting of twenty-seven sail was seen
at Willoughby Point.[533] Governor Jefferson began at once to
make strenuous efforts to get the Virginia fleet in condition to
oppose Arnold. The role of admiral was an odd one for Jefferson. In
February he sent Benjamin Harrison, speaker of the Virginia House
of Delegates, to Philadelphia to request of the French minister the
aid of the French fleet.[534] A half-dozen or more privateers were
taken into the service of the state. Twelve vessels of the state
fleet of 1776-1779 still remained. Most if not all of these vessels
were either at the Chickahominy shipyard and near by on the James, or
else at the mouth of the James. Few of them were sufficiently manned
to render much service. On April 26 Maxwell reported 78 men on board
seven vessels, whose complement was 520 men. Other ships had neither
arms nor men.[535]
In April, 1781, Arnold and Phillips made their raid up the James,
penetrating as far as Richmond. On April 21 and 22, a detachment
under Lieutenant-Colonel Abercrombie destroyed the shipyard on the
Chickahominy, including a number of naval craft and the warehouses.
On April 27, at Osbornes on the James a few miles below Richmond,
the Virginia fleet, supported by two or three hundred militia upon
the shore opposite the British army, drew up to oppose the enemy.
It consisted of six ships, eight brigs, five sloops, two schooners,
and several smaller craft. Its chief vessels were the “Tempest,” 16,
“Renown,” 16, and “Jefferson,” 14. The British sent a flag of truce
to the Commodore of the Virginia fleet, proposing to treat with him
for its surrender. He sent back the spirited reply that “he was
determined to defend it to the last extremity.” A few cannon planted
on the shore soon gave the enemy a command of the situation. After
a short engagement, the Virginians scuttled or set fire to several
of their vessels and fled to the opposite shore. None of the fleet
escaped. The British captured twelve vessels, which the Virginians
were unable to destroy. On this expedition the British burnt the
state rope-walk at Warwick. After the raid of Arnold and Phillips,
but one vessel remained in the Virginia navy, the armed boat
“Liberty.”[536]
The officers and seamen of the Virginia navy, thrown out of
employment by the destruction of the fleet, aided the allied forces
at the siege of Yorktown in collecting supplies and transporting
troops. The boat “Liberty” was used as a transport; and also the
ships “Cormorant,” “Loyalist,” and “Oliver Cromwell,” which three
vessels, it is believed, Virginia purchased for this purpose. Soon
after the surrender of Cornwallis the Virginia General Assembly,
recognizing that “during the continuance of the present expensive
war it is necessary to husband the resources of the state with the
utmost oeconomy,” dismissed almost all the officers and seamen, the
Commissioner of the Navy, the chaplains, surgeons, pay masters, and
all others on the naval staff.[537]
A number of times during the Revolution, and now for the last time in
1782, Virginia and Maryland undertook to concert a naval defence of
their trade on the Chesapeake. The General Assembly of Virginia which
met in May, 1782, appointed three commissioners to superintend the
work of protecting; the Bay. The “Cormorant” and “Liberty” were to
be immediately prepared for this service. Two galleys and two barges
or whale boats were to be built. For this work the state appropriated
£1,000, the proceeds arising from the sale of the “Loyalist,” and
certain tonnage and import duties. The commissioners were to fix
the pay and subsistence of the seamen; the fleet was not to be sent
outside of the Capes.[538]
The commissioners managed a small naval force during 1782 and
1783 until the war came to an end. Commodore Barron, stationed at
Hampton, was chiefly occupied at this time with the exchanging of
prisoners. Beyond the building of a few naval craft, it does not
appear that this final naval enterprise of Virginia was attended
with fruitful results. When peace was declared in the spring of
1783, the commissioners had in different stages of construction the
schooners “Harrison,” “Fly,” and “Patriot,” and the barges “York”
and “Richmond.” Virginia now disposed of all her fleet except the
“Liberty” and “Patriot,” which she retained as revenue cutters.[539]
In order to keep these two armed vessels in time of peace, Virginia,
in accordance with a provision in the Articles of Confederation,
obtained the permission of Congress.[540] These two boats were still
in the employ of the state in 1787. The “Liberty” saw more service
than any other state or Continental vessel of the Revolution. She was
in the employ of Virginia from 1775 until 1787.
FOOTNOTES:
[506] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX, 83.
[507] Calendar of Virginia State Papers, VIII, 75-240, Journal of
Committee of Safety of Virginia, February 7 to July 5, 1776. Virginia
had a class of vessels which she referred to as “armed boats.” They
were smart craft, and appear to have been schooner-rigged.
[508] Miss Rowland’s George Mason, I, 214, 218.
[509] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX, 149-51. The Provincial
Convention which met May 6, 1776, adopted a Constitution which
provided for a Legislature of two houses, and an Executive consisting
of a Governor and a Privy Council of eight members.
[510] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX, 521-22, October session of
General Assembly in 1778.
[511] Southern Literary Messenger, 1857, 14. The references to
this magazine refer to a series of valuable articles entitled “The
Virginia Navy of the Revolution.”
[512] E. P. Lull, History of U. S. Navy Yard, at Gosport, Virginia,
8-11; Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI, 407.
[513] Journals of Virginia Navy Board, Virginia State Archives, June
25, June 26, 1776.
[514] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX, 235-36.
[515] Journals of Virginia Navy Board, January 7, 1777.
[516] Maryland Archives, XI, 293-94.
[517] Journals of Virginia Navy Board; State Navy Papers, I; Southern
Literary Messenger, 1857, 3.
[518] Journal of Virginia Navy Board, September, October, 1776.
[519] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX, 196-97. In August, 1776, the
Navy Board drew up a list of naval rules which were endorsed by the
Governor and Council.—Journals of Virginia Navy Board, August 2, 1776.
[520] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, IX, 103, 131-32, 202-06.
[521] Ford, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, II, 241-43.
[522] Journals of Virginia Navy Board, April 8, 1777.
[523] These vessels were the brig “Adventure;” the schooners
“Hornet,” “Peace and Plenty,” “Revenge,” and “Speedwell;” the sloop
“Agatha;” and the armed boat “Molly.” The lists of vessels here given
were compiled from the Virginia naval archives.
[524] These vessels were the galleys “Henry,” “Hero,” “Lewis,”
“Manly,” “Norfolk Revenge,” “Page,” and “Safeguard;” the brigs
“Liberty,” “Mosquito,” “Northampton,” and “Raleigh;” the schooners
“Liberty” and “Adventure;” the sloop “Scorpion;” and the armed boats
“Liberty” and “Patriot.” The schooner “Liberty” was taken into the
trading fleet as the “Hornet.” It is believed that this list does not
contain the vessels in Mason’s Potomac fleet.
[525] The names of the vessels not mentioned in the text, which were
added during 1777, 1778, and 1779 were the brigs “Greyhound” and
“Hampton” and the armed boats “Nicholson,” “Experiment,” “Fly,” and
“Dolphin.” The names of several other vessels which were probably
used in trade, occur during this period. Some of the ships are at
times referred to as galleys.
[526] Files of Virginia Gazette; Journals of Virginia Convention, May
8, 1776; Virginia Historical Register I, 77; Calendar of Virginia
State Papers, III, 365.
[527] Almon’s Remembrancer, 1779, 289-95, account given by British
officers; Records of State of North Carolina, XIV, 85-86, 94-95. Some
of the vessels destroyed at Gosport probably belonged to Congress.
[528] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X, 15-18, 123.
[529] Ibid., 278, 291-92.
[530] Hening, IX, 537; X, 23-24, 217.
[531] Hening, X, 296-99.
[532] Hening, X, 379-86.
[533] Ford, Writings of Jefferson, II, 392.
[534] Ibid., 443-44.
[535] Virginia Calendar of State Papers, I, 588; II, 74.
[536] Almon’s Remembrancer, 1781, II, 62-63, Arnold to Clinton,
Petersburg, May 12, 1781.
[537] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, X, 450; Virginia Navy Papers, I,
and II.
[538] Hening, Statutes of Virginia, XI, 42-44. In March, 1783, the
three commissioners were Paul Loyall, Thomas Brown, and Thomas
Newton, jr.—Virginia Calendar of State Papers, III, 456.
[539] Virginia Navy Papers, II.
[540] Journals of Continental Congress, October 3, 1783.
CHAPTER XV
THE NAVY OF SOUTH CAROLINA[541]
South Carolina employed her first armed vessels in obtaining a supply
of gunpowder, the need of which article was so keenly felt throughout
the colonies during the first years of the Revolution. In July, 1775,
the South Carolina Council of Safety sent Captains John Barnwell and
John Joyner of Beaufort with forty men in two large and well-armed
barges to assist the Georgians in taking an English supply-ship,
which was daily expected at Savannah. The enterprise was wholly
successful. The ship with its cargo of sixteen thousand pounds of
gunpowder was captured by the combined forces of the two colonies.
South Carolina sent four thousand pounds of her share of the powder
to the Continental Congress at Philadelphia.[542]
In the same month of July the Council of Safety planned to seize
certain gunpowder stored at Nassau, New Providence, and for this
purpose the “Commerce,” a sloop belonging to citizens of New York,
was temporarily taken into the service of the state. It will be
recalled that Commodore Esek Hopkins in the initial essay of the
Continental fleet in February and March, 1776, attempted to capture
this gunpowder. Before the “Commerce” was ready to set sail, word
came that the brigantine “Betsey” from London with a cargo of
ammunition was soon to arrive at St. Augustine. Captain Clement
Lemprière, the commander of the “Commerce,” was therefore ordered to
cruise off St. Augustine in watch for the expected vessel. On August
8 he captured the “Betsey” with her load of gunpowder amounting to
almost twelve thousand pounds.[543]
Neither of these two episodes led to a permanent naval armament.
This, as was to be expected, was brought about by the necessity of
protecting Charles Town, the capital and chief port of the Province.
The critical month in South Carolina in 1775 was September. During
this month two of His Majesty’s vessels, the “Tamar,” 16, and
“Cherokee,” 6, lay in Charles Town harbor. It was in September that
Lord William Campbell, the Royal Governor of the Province, fled
from Charles Town on board the “Tamar.” In September the South
Carolina Council of Safety began to seize the forts commanding the
channel leading to Charles Town from the sea. The executive of the
Revolutionary government at this time consisted of the Council of
Safety of thirteen members. About the first of October the Council
of Safety obtained the schooner “Defence” and placed it under the
command of Captain Simon Tufts, a native of Massachusetts, but now
a resident of Charles Town. The Council of Safety fixed the pay of
officers and men on board the schooner.
During November, naval affairs were chiefly in the hands of the
Second Provincial Congress, the Revolutionary legislature, which body
on November 10 appointed Edward Blake Commissary of Stores for the
Naval Department. On November 11 the “Defence,” 10, manned by her
regular complement of seamen, and thirty-five marines taken from the
land forces, was detailed to cover a party sent to obstruct certain
channels near Charles Town by sinking old schooners. While engaged
in this service she exchanged shots with the “Tamar” and “Cherokee”
without causing much damage on either side. On November 12, stirred
by this encounter, the Provincial Congress voted, though by a narrow
majority, to impress, fit out, and arm the ship “Prosper” for the
purpose of capturing the British ships in Charles Town harbor; and
appointed commissioners to superintend the work.[544]
The Provincial Congress having adjourned on the 29th of November,
the Second Council of Safety continued the naval preparations. On
December 16 it appointed William Henry Drayton, the well-known
Revolutionary agitator and leader, to command the “Prosper” in place
of Captain Tufts who had some time before been transferred from the
“Defence” to the “Prosper.”[545] A third vessel was now obtained,
the schooner “Comet,” and was placed in charge of Captain Joseph
Turpin. Owing to the paucity of seamen in South Carolina, the Council
of Safety in December directed Captain Robert Cochran to proceed to
Massachusetts and obtain recruits for the navy. When in January,
1776, Cochran was in Philadelphia, the delegates of South Carolina to
the Continental Congress called that body’s attention to Cochran’s
mission. In order that no friction should arise between Cochran and
the military authorities in Massachusetts over the enlistment of men,
Congress recommended to him that he offer to seamen moderate wages
and bounties; that he immediately repair to the camp at Cambridge
and take Washington’s advice; and that he enlist the seamen in
those parts of the country where he would least interfere with the
Continental service. The Massachusetts Council agreed to permit
Cochran to raise three hundred men.[546] South Carolina also enlisted
seamen in Georgia.[547]
On February 15 the Second Provincial Congress, which had met on
the 1st, appointed a committee to report on the best means and
the expense of building two frigates of thirty-two guns each. It
authorized the enlisting, if necessary, of two hundred marines.
On March 5 a committee was appointed to prepare “proper Rules and
Articles for the better regulation and government of the Navy of this
Colony.” On the 25th, the report of this committee after amendment
was adopted, and on the next day the respective rank of army and navy
officers was fixed. On March 14th the Provincial Congress authorized
the committee at Georgetown, a port to the north of Charles Town,
to purchase and fit out proper armed vessels for the defence of the
trade of Georgetown, and on the same day gave similar orders to a
committee of Beaufort, a port to the south of Charles Town. Provision
was now made for a Muster-Master General of the Army and Navy.[548]
In March the armed schooner “Peggy” was in the service of the state.
On March 26, 1776, a new government under a Constitution went
into effect in South Carolina. This provided for a legislature
consisting of two houses, a General Assembly and a Legislative
Council. The executive of the state was a President, or “President
and Commander-in-chief,” the title ran, and a Privy Council of seven
members. According to the constitution the captains of the navy were
to be chosen by a joint ballot of the two houses of the Legislature,
and were to be commissioned by the President.[549] Early in April
Colonel Pinckney presented in the General Assembly an ordinance to
appoint a Commander of the Navy to be subject to the President.[550]
On April 9 the Legislature passed an act to prevent the desertion of
soldiers and sailors. A hospital for sick and wounded soldiers and
sailors was established at Charles Town. On April 11 the Legislature
established a Court of Admiralty which was given jurisdiction over
all captured ships belonging to “Great Britain, Ireland, the British
West Indies, Nova Scotia, East and West Florida.” The facts in cases
of capture were to be tried by a jury.[551]
On September 21, 1776, President John Rutledge, in a message to
the Legislature, recommended the appointment of commissioners to
superintend the naval affairs of the state, believing that thereby
the navy would be placed upon a better footing. On the same day,
in accordance with the President’s recommendation, the General
Assembly appointed a committee to draft a bill. On October 8 an
act was passed which established a Board of Naval Commissioners,
consisting of seven men, and empowered “to superintend and direct all
matters and things whatsoever to the navy of this state in any wise
relating.”[552] This act was modelled on the act of Virginia on the
same subject. It varies from the Virginia act in a few particulars,
and is a little more detailed. The Navy Board was charged with the
building, hiring or buying of all naval vessels, and the arming,
outfitting and provisioning of the same, and with the construction
of rope-walks and shipyards. It was authorized to audit the naval
accounts, draw warrants on the treasury for necessary expenditures,
recommend officers, fill vacancies temporarily with the approval
of the President, keep itself informed as to the state of the
navy, and report thereon to the Legislature. With the concurrence
of the President and the Privy Council the Board could remove or
suspend officers for neglect of duty or misbehavior. Soon after the
organization of the Board, the question was raised whether it had
the power to order the vessels on cruises; the President and Privy
Council decided that the Board had no such power, and that the
detailing of vessels was a function of their own.[553] In addition
to its strictly naval duties the Board directed the procuring and
fitting out of trading vessels and transports.
The Navy Board held its first meeting on October 9, 1776, at Charles
Town, and organized by electing Edward Blake First Commissioner. On
the 12th it chose its clerk.[554] The duty of this officer was to
keep a regular journal of the transactions of the Board; and once in
three months, or oftener if necessary, to go aboard the vessels and
take an account of the officers and seamen and pay them their wages.
His salary was £1,400 currency, a year. At first a majority of the
Board constituted a quorum. When it became difficult to assemble four
out of its seven members, two more members were added to the Board,
and a quorum was reduced to three men.[555] The act which established
the Board was to continue in effect two years. On October 9, 1778,
the Board was continued until October 8, 1779, and from thence until
the end of the Legislature then in session. The introduction of a
bill into the House of Representatives on February 8, 1780, to repeal
all previous acts establishing a Board of Naval Commissioners makes
it highly probable that the Navy Board was discontinued about this
time.[556]
On taking charge of naval affairs the Navy Board found one of its
most engrossing duties to be the purchasing of supplies of all
sorts—salted beef and pork, bread, pitch, tar, turpentine, tallow,
duck, cordage, and spars. On October 17, 1776, it appointed a naval
agent at Georgetown to procure and issue supplies to the schooner
“Rattlesnake,” Captain Stephen Seymour, now in the employ of the
state for the protection of this port.[557] The Board continued the
building of four galleys, which had been begun by President Rutledge.
In April, 1777, it leased Captain Cochran’s shipyard at Charles Town,
together with five negroes, for the term of five years.[558] In
October, 1778, it bought of Paul Pritchard, shipwright, eighty-five
acres on Hobcaw creek, near Charles Town, for a shipyard.[559]
During 1777 and 1778 the Legislature passed a few ordinances relating
to the navy. On January 16, 1777, it fixed the shares of prizes.
Officers and seamen were to receive one-half the net proceeds of all
captures. This half was then to be divided into sixteen parts and
allotted to officers and seamen according to a fixed scale. Captains
were given two-sixteenths; seamen and marines, three-sixteenths.[560]
In February the captors’ share of vessels of war and privateers
was increased to the whole of the prize. In January, 1778, a law
of obvious purpose was passed, which freed all seamen who entered
into the Continental or state naval service from the obligations of
previous contracts made with the owners of private ships. In March,
1778, the appointment of a commodore to command the navy of the
state necessitated a new distribution of the proceeds of captures
among officers and seamen. The commodore’s share was fixed at
two-sixteenths.[561] In October, 1778, the Legislature authorized the
Navy Board to purchase any “negroes or other slaves for the use of
the publick shipyard or rope work,” which property was to be vested
in the public forever.[562]
During 1776, 1777, and 1778 the Navy Board added a few vessels to
the navy. Several galleys were built during this period. In the fall
of 1776 the brigantine “Notre Dame” was procured, armed, and sent
to France under the command of Captain Robert Cochran on a trading
voyage.[563] In 1777 one finds the sloop “Beaufort” in the service of
the state, being probably stationed at Beaufort for the defence of
the trade of that port. Early in 1779 the Navy Board completed the
construction of the brig “Hornet.” Now and then the state obtained
the loan of privateers for short periods. Information concerning
South Carolina’s privateers is scant. We know, however, that she had
a considerable fleet. Between August 17, 1776, and April 16, 1777,
President Rutledge granted thirty-seven letters of marque.[564]
Few states exceeded South Carolina in naval expenditures. With the
exception of Massachusetts, the vessels of no other state went to sea
so often as did those of South Carolina. The navy of South Carolina
was smaller than that of Virginia, but much more active. From 1776
to 1779 it captured some thirty-five small prizes, only about half
of which, however, reached safe ports.[565] Its principal cruising
grounds were off the South Carolina and Florida coasts and in the
West Indies. The South Carolina vessels frequently cruised off St.
Augustine. This was an important British port during the Revolution,
and many privateers and smaller British vessels visited it. The
noting of a few captures will show the character of the work of the
South Carolina navy. In July, 1777, the “Notre Dame” carried into
a South Carolina port the brig “Judith,” 12, laden with dry goods
for St. Augustine; and in October the same vessel captured the brig
“John,” and the schooner “Jemmy and Sally” with cargoes of staves and
shingles outward bound from the Mississippi.[566] In the spring of
1779 the “Notre Dame,” “Hornet,” and “Eagle” made prizes of the sloop
“Prince of Wales,” 12, and the brig “Royal Charlotte,” both bound for
Georgia, with West India products.[567]
In December, 1777, President Rutledge and the Privy Council, in
opposition to the best military judgment in South Carolina, concerted
with Captain Nicholas Biddle, of the Continental frigate “Randolph,”
32, an expedition to clear the coasts of the enemy’s vessels. South
Carolina furnished the “Notre Dame,” 16, Captain Hall, and three
privateers, which were temporarily taken into the public service.
These were the ships “General Moultrie,” 18, Captain Sullivan,
“Polly,” 16, Captain Anthony, and “Fair American,” 14, Captain
Morgan. One hundred and fifty South Carolina troops were taken on
board to serve as marines. Sailing about February 1, 1779, the fleet
soon cleared the coast of the enemy, and then proceeded to the West
Indies on the lookout for rich West India merchantmen—an object
which was probably in view from the first. On March 7, when the
fleet was to the windward of Barbadoes, the “Randolph” fell in with
the British ship of the line “Yarmouth,” 64. During a running fight
an explosion of tremendous force occurred on board the “Randolph.”
Burning spars and timbers six feet long, together with an undamaged
ensign, fell upon the decks of the “Yarmouth.” The “Randolph,” with
almost her entire crew of 315 men, including Captain Joseph Ioor and
fifty South Carolina marines, sank soon after the accident. Five
days after the fight the “Yarmouth” picked up four men clinging to
the wreckage, the only men rescued. Two of the four South Carolina
vessels, the “General Moultrie” and the “Fair American,” now returned
home, taking on the way a valuable Guineaman. The “Notre Dame” and
the “Polly” continued their cruise within the West Indies, the “Notre
Dame” reaching as far westward as the Isle of Pines. The two vessels
captured eleven small prizes, a number of which, however, were
recaptured before reaching safe ports.[568]
The transference of the seat of war from the Northern to the Southern
states, in 1779, and the British naval expedition against Charles
Town, early in 1780, caused increased naval activity in South
Carolina. In August, 1779, the House of Representatives sent to the
Senate a bill offering bounties and fixing a new rate of wages for
officers and seamen.[569] In September the House passed a bill for
building two floating batteries and four galleys.[570] Acting on the
recommendations of the Governor, the House in February, 1780, voted
that it would be of public utility to employ a number of negroes not
to exceed one thousand to act as pioneers and fatigue men in the
army and as oarsmen and mariners in the navy.[571] Additional armed
vessels were now obtained in different ways. During 1779 the Governor
issued commissions to fourteen vessels. A number of small craft,
used chiefly as transports, were impressed.[572] The “Notre Dame,”
16, and the “General Moultrie,” 20, were assigned to the defence of
Charles Town. The state purchased from France the “Bricole,” 44,
and the “Truite,” 26. The “Bricole” was pierced for sixty guns, and
mounted forty-four 24’s and 18’s. She was the largest vessel owned
by any of the states. For the defence of Charles Town France sent
“L’Aventure,” 26, and “Polacre,” 16; and Congress the “Providence,”
28, “Boston,” 24, “Queen of France,” 28, and “Ranger,” 18.[573]
The naval defence of Charles Town was intrusted to Captain Abraham
Whipple, the senior officer of the four Continental vessels. Whipple
advised that a naval defence at the bar on the seacoast, which lay
to the eastward of the forts that commanded the entrance to Charles
Town harbor, should not be undertaken; and later he gave it as his
opinion that it was impracticable for the armed vessels to coöperate
with the forts. Such timid counsels prevailed, and no naval defence
of Charles Town was made. With the exception of the “Ranger” all the
vessels were dismantled and their guns and crews removed to reinforce
the land batteries and troops in Charles Town. With the fall of the
city on May 12, 1780, South Carolina lost her entire navy, with the
exception of the frigate “South Carolina,” whose fortunes we are
about ready to consider. The “Bricole,” “Truite,” “General Moultrie,”
and “Notre Dame” were sunk.[574] The “Boston” and “Ranger” were added
to the Royal Navy.
In 1781, with the returning tide of the patriot forces a few small
vessels were armed at Georgetown.[575] In February, 1783, Governor
Guerard recommended the purchase of a ship, which had lately been
carried into Wilmington, North Carolina, for the defence of Charles
Town harbor. The House was unfavorable to the transaction, because
of the lack of means, the difficulty of manning the ship, and the
risk of bringing it around.[576] In March, 1783, a committee of the
House was appointed to consider what arrangements should be made with
respect to the naval officers of the state; and it reported that, by
the Articles of Confederation, South Carolina was precluded from
having a navy, and that it was therefore of the opinion that the
state could not retain in its service its naval officers.[577]
A most interesting episode in the history of the South Carolina navy
remains to be told. It properly begins with the commissioning on
March 11, 1778, of Alexander Gillon, a prosperous and influential
merchant of South Carolina, to be a commodore in the navy with “full
and ample power and authority to take the Command, Direction, and
Ordering of the said Navy,” agreeable to its rules and articles.
On the same day John Joyner, William Robertson, and John McQueen
received commissions as captains. On March 26 the state decided
to raise abroad £500,000 currency, or £71,429 sterling, for the
purpose of building or purchasing three frigates. On July 17 Gillon
was commissioned to go abroad and undertake the task of securing
the loan and procuring the vessels. The exact sum which Gillon was
now directed to borrow was less than £500,000 by the sum of the
proceeds which he would derive from the sale of certain produce, to
be exported from South Carolina to Europe, and consisting chiefly of
indigo and rice. Early in the fall of 1778 the “Notre Dame” carried
Gillon, his three captains, and other naval officers to Havana,
whence they took passage to Europe.
On January 31, 1779, Gillon was empowered to borrow, in addition
to previous authorizations, £15,000 sterling, which was to be
invested in arms, ammunition, and “Indian goods.” Of the total sum,
£86,429, which he was authorized to obtain, he actually borrowed
in Amsterdam, Ghent, Bordeaux and Paris £46,725, and received as
the proceeds arising from the sale of exported produce £10,000. It
is thus seen that Gillon, in his financial mission, was moderately
successful. He was less fortunate in making the proposed naval
increase. He succeeded, however, in renting the frigate “Indian”
from the Chevalier Luxembourg for one-fourth of her prizes, for a
period of three years. The reader recollects that this ship was
built at Amsterdam in 1777 by the American Commissioners at Paris,
and that owing to lack of money and to complications growing out of
the laws of neutrality, they had sold the “Indian” to the French
king. Louis XVI. had, in turn, ceded the “Indian” to the Chevalier
Luxembourg.[578]
Gillon renamed his frigate the “South Carolina,” and mounted her
with twenty-eight 32’s and twelve 12’s. Numerous delays ensued in
getting to sea. Owing to shallow water and the heavy draught of the
“South Carolina,” she was from July to November, 1780, moving from
Amsterdam to the Texel. She spent the winter of 1780-1781 in a small
creek near the Texel. These delays caused much expense, and in order
to pay off some of his bills, Gillon, in the spring of 1781, sold to
Colonel John Laurens for Congress military supplies, which he had
recently purchased for South Carolina, to the amount of £10,000.
Laurens now engaged Gillon to take these supplies together with
others to Philadelphia. Gillon had been given full power to man and
officer his vessel, having carried over with him fifteen commissions
and thirty warrants in blank. In March, 1781, he wrote that he had
about two hundred men on board, and that he expected two hundred and
eighty from Dunkirk which the Chevalier Luxembourg had raised for the
state.[579]
The “South Carolina” finally got to sea about the first of August,
1781, leaving behind the convoy which had expected to accompany
her. Gillon’s movements and dealings abroad are not at all points
clear. He aroused suspicions as to his honesty, and made a number of
enemies. Exactly why he did not at once proceed to Philadelphia with
the supplies for Congress which he had on board is not certain. On
sailing he cruised for a month in the North Sea, and for a time near
the English Channel, and then, about the first of October, he put
into Coruña, Spain. Gillon said that he had been detained by contrary
winds, and had returned for fresh provisions before sailing for
America.[580]
On January 12, 1782, Gillon arrived at Havana with five valuable
Jamaicamen, loaded with rum and sugar, and said to be worth $150,000.
Here he found the Spaniards planning a descent on the Bahama Islands,
and he now agreed to take command of the sea-forces consisting of
fifty-nine Spanish and American vessels—probably chiefly Spanish.
General Cadrigal commanded the troops. The expedition left Havana on
April 22, and on May 8 the Bahamas surrendered without firing a shot.
Gillon not very modestly attributed the success of the enterprise to
the “great attention which the captains and officers of the American
vessels of war paid in conveying such a fleet through so difficult
and so unfrequented a passage, with a beating wind all the way,
whereby we disappointed any plans the enemy might have formed of
attacking us in our way through the gulph of Florida.” The island
surrendered, not to the joint American and Spanish forces, but to the
Spaniards alone.[581] It was reported that the Spaniards and Gillon
captured three hundred troops and ninety sail of vessels.[582]
On May 28th the “South Carolina” arrived in Philadelphia, where she
was refitting during the summer and fall of 1782. An agent of the
Chevalier Luxembourg now removed Gillon from the command of his
vessel, which was given to Captain Joyner. The “South Carolina” did
not get to sea until December, 1782. Soon after leaving the Capes
of the Delaware she was chased by a British squadron, which, after
a race of eighteen hours, overhauled her, and at the end of a two
hours’ fight, forced her to surrender.[583] For the loss of this
vessel the Chevalier Luxembourg, in accordance with the terms of his
contract, demanded from South Carolina the payment of 300,000 livres.
Gillon asserted that Luxembourg had forfeited all right to the money
by displacing him at Philadelphia from his command of the vessel.
Further, Gillon declared that the Chevalier had subjected the state
to serious losses by sending its marines, in the winter of 1780-1781,
on an expedition to the Island of Jersey.[584] One estimate makes
the total cost of the frigate to the state more than $200,000, and
another puts it at $500,000.[585] The Luxembourg claims remained
unsettled until December 21, 1814, when the state made a final
payment of $28,894 to the heirs of the Chevalier.[586] South Carolina
is still prosecuting her claims against the United States for a
reimbursement of the expenses contracted in behalf of the “South
Carolina.”[587]
FOOTNOTES:
[541] In writing this chapter I have been much assisted by Mr. A. S.
Salley, Jr., Secretary of the Historical Commission of South Carolina.
[542] Drayton, Memoirs of American Revolution, I, 269-71. Collections
of South Carolina Historical Society, II, 50.
[543] Collections of South Carolina Historical Society, II, 43, 44,
57, 59, 62, 63. Drayton, Memoirs of American Revolution, I, 304-06.
[544] Journals of South Carolina Provincial Congress, November 9, 10,
12, 1775.
[545] Collections of South Carolina Historical Society, III, Journals
of South Carolina Council of Safety, December 16, 1775.
[546] Force, American Archives, 4th, IV, 1307-08. Journals of
Continental Congress, January 16, January 19, 1776.
[547] Gibbes, Documentary History of the American Revolution,
1764-1776, 258.
[548] Journals of South Carolina Provincial Congress, February 15,
February 22, March 5, 14, 25, 26, 1776.
[549] Constitution of South Carolina of 1776.
[550] Journals of South Carolina General Assembly, April 10, April
11, 1776.
[551] Journals of South Carolina General Assembly, April 11, 1776;
Cooper, Statutes of South Carolina, IV, April 9, April 11, 1776.
[552] Journals of South Carolina General Assembly, September 21,
1776; Cooper, Statutes of South Carolina, IV, October 8, 1776.
[553] Force, American Archives, 5th, II, Journals of South Carolina
Navy Board, October 25, 1776.
[554] Ibid., Journals of South Carolina Navy Board, October 9, 12,
1776.
[555] Cooper, Statutes of South Carolina, IV, August 23, 1777.
[556] Journals of South Carolina House of Representatives, February
8, 1780.
[557] Force, American Archives, 5th, II, Journals of South Carolina
Navy Board, October 17, 1776.
[558] Journals of South Carolina House of Representatives, September
10, 1779. The contract with Cochran was being dissolved.
[559] Notes of Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr., Secretary of the Historical
Commission of South Carolina.
[560] Cooper, Statutes of South Carolina, IV, January 16, 1777.
[561] Cooper, Statutes of South Carolina, IV, February 13, 1777,
January 26, March 28, 1778. On February 13, 1777, a new act relating
to the Court of Admiralty was passed.
[562] Ibid., October 9, 1778.
[563] In 1776 the following vessels were employed as merchantmen:
schooners, “Polly,” “Peggy” and “Little Thomas;” the brigantine
“Notre Dame,” and the sloop “Margaret.”
[564] South Carolina Archives, Miscellaneous Records, A, 18, 19.
[565] Files of South Carolina and American General Gazette, and
Gazette of State of South Carolina.
[566] Gazette of State of South Carolina, July 21, November 4, 1777.
[567] Ibid., April 7, 1779.
[568] Moultrie, Memoirs of American Revolution, I, 193-99; South
Carolina and American General Gazette, April 23, May 28, June 4,
1778; Ramsay, Revolution in South Carolina, I, 71; Clowes’s Royal
Navy, IV, 10.
[569] Journals of South Carolina House of Representatives, August 31,
1779.
[570] Ibid., September 6, 1779. The Senate was not willing to make so
large a naval increase.
[571] Ibid., February 14, 1780.
[572] South Carolina Archives, Miscellaneous Records, A. Among the
vessels to which the Governor gave commissions were the following:
galleys “Congress,” “South Edisto,” “Revenge,” “Beaufort,” “Lee,”
“Marquis de Bretigny,” and “Carolina;” sloop “Count de Kersaint,”
brigantines “General Lincoln” and “Beaufort,” schooner “Eshe,”
and the vessel “Lovely Julia.” The following vessels, a number of
which were impressed, were in the service of the state in 1779 or
1780: galley “Rutledge,” schooners “Polly,” “Rattlesnake,” “Sally,”
“Anthony,” “General Moultrie,” “Nancy,” “Three Friends,” brig “Wasp”
and brigantine “Ballony.”
[573] Almon’s Remembrancer, 1780, II, 44-47.
[574] Previous to the siege of Charles Town, His Majesty’s navy had
captured the following vessels: February, 1777, “Defence” taken by
the “Roebuck” and “Perseus;” December, 1777, “Comet,” taken by the
“Daphne;” April, 1779, “Hornet,” taken by the same.
[575] Gibbes, Documentary History of American Revolution, 1776-1782,
181, 183.
[576] Journals of South Carolina House of Representatives, February
12, 1780.
[577] Journals of South Carolina House of Representatives, March 5,
1783.
[578] South Carolina Archives, Miscellaneous Records, A, 66, 67;
Journals of South Carolina House of Representatives, March 10, 1783,
report of a committee on certain papers of Commodore Gillon.
[579] South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, I, 28-32,
136-47, two letters of Gillon.
[580] New York Historical Society Collections, Deane Papers, IV, 450,
468, 478, 519; Wharton, Diplomatic Correspondence, IV, 546-47, note.
[581] Pennsylvania Packet, March 5, May 31, and June 4, 1782. The
issue of June 4 contains a letter of Gillon to Governor Mathewes of
South Carolina, dated May 15, 1782, containing an account of the
expedition; Gibbes, Documentary History of American Revolution,
1776-1782, 170.
[582] Connecticut Gazette, June 14, 1782.
[583] Clowes’s Royal Navy, IV, 91.
[584] Journals of South Carolina House of Representatives, March 10,
1783.
[585] McCrady, South Carolina in Revolution, 1775-1780, 219.
[586] Cooper, Statutes of South Carolina, V, December 21, 1814.
[587] Conversations with Hon. J. T. Gantt, Secretary of State of
South Carolina.
CHAPTER XVI
THE MINOR NAVIES OF THE SOUTHERN STATES
Naval administration in Maryland was vested in the Committee of
Safety until March 22, 1777, when it passed to the Governor and
Council, the executive under the first state constitution of
Maryland. The Committee was given a free hand in its control of
the navy. The Provincial Convention empowered it to fix the pay of
officers and seamen, and to appoint the commanders of the smaller
naval vessels. The Convention, however, established the pay of
marines, which was the same as that of the state troops; and it
decided that the uniform of the marines should be a blue hunting
shirt.[588] The first naval work of the Committee of Safety was
the fitting and arming, in February and March, 1776, of the ship
“Defence,” twenty-two 6-pounders, Captain James Nicholson, the chief
vessel in the Maryland navy. In March the schooner “Resolution” was
purchased as a tender for the “Defence.” The Committee of Safety,
which held its meetings in Annapolis was early in 1776 assisted
in its work at Baltimore, the chief port of the state, by the
Baltimore Committee of Observation; and, later in the year, by Jesse
Hollingsworth, who was appointed naval agent for Baltimore.
In June and July, 1776, the Provincial Convention ordered the
Committee of Safety to build seven row-galleys, and to fit out three
small vessels, mounting not more than ten guns each, and a number
of armed boats not to exceed six.[589] By the spring of 1777 the
Committee of Safety had built, fitted, and officered the galleys
“Baltimore,” “Conqueror,” “Independence,” and “Chester,” and the
armed boat “Plater;” it had in process of construction, ready to
launch, the galleys “Johnson” and “Annapolis,” and it had purchased
the tender “Amelia” and the schooner “Dolphin.” During the first
years of the war the Committee of Safety hired or purchased several
small vessels, which were used chiefly as merchantmen.[590] It is
not always easy to distinguish these craft from the naval vessels,
which were now and then sent on trading voyages. Maryland’s most
common commercial venture was to ship flour and tobacco to the firm
of Harrison and Van Bibber at Martinique, and there laden her vessels
for the homeward voyage with munitions of war.[591]
As an inducement to recruits, the Provincial Convention, in October,
1776, offered a bounty of $20 to able seamen, and $10 to landsmen.
Officers and seamen who received bounties and wages were given
one-third of their prizes, the share granted by the Continental
Congress; those who did not receive bounties and wages were given
the whole of their prizes.[592] Maryland was unable to meet the
competition with privateers for seamen, and her vessels were often
forced to remain in port for lack of crews. In December, 1776, the
naval agent at Baltimore wrote that he could “load twenty vessels
rather than man and sail two. The money paid to captains and sailors
is wonderful, and no way to shun it.”[593]
Maryland established in her navy the rank of commodore. On June
8, 1778, her Governor commissioned Thomas Grason, who had been
appointed commodore on April 21 by the General Assembly.[594] In 1782
a “Commodore Whaley” was in the naval service. Her most prominent
captains were James Nicholson, who in 1776 became the senior captain
in the Continental navy; and George Cook, who had served seven years
in the British navy. Lieutenant John Henry Boucher resigned early in
1776 to enter the Virginia naval service, where he soon rose to the
highest rank.
In May, 1776, the Provincial Convention, pursuant to the resolves
of the Continental Congress, established a Court of Admiralty,
consisting of a judge, marshal, and register. The procedure was to
be that usual in such courts; trial by jury was made optional; and
the judge was permitted to determine the places of sitting.[595]
The privateers of Maryland were generally small craft, mounting on
the average eight 4-pounders. They plied their trade chiefly in
Chesapeake Bay. From April 1, 1777, to March 14, 1783, a period of
almost six years, Maryland issued letters of marque and reprisal to
248 privateers, carrying a total of 1,810 guns.[596]
Since a number of her vessels had been for some time idle for lack
of crews, Maryland in the first half of 1779 sold all of her naval
craft, except the galleys “Conqueror” and “Chester,” and the schooner
“Dolphin.”[597] From 1780 to the end of the Revolution the trade in
the Chesapeake, and the property of the inhabitants of the Maryland
coasts, on both sides of the Bay, suffered severely from the ravages
of the British refugee barges, privateers, and small naval craft.
These conditions led Maryland to make frequent attempts, during the
last years of the war, to provide a naval armament for the defence of
the Bay. In 1780 she was moved to renew her naval activities by still
other considerations. The success of the British this year in South
and North Carolina and on the coasts of Virginia made the outlook for
Maryland very threatening. It was also known that Clinton wished to
carry the war into Maryland and Virginia.
In October, 1780, Maryland passed her first act for the defence of
the Bay. The Governor and Council were ordered to provide, officer,
and man four large barges or row-boats, each to carry at least
twenty-five men, one galley to be armed with two 18’s and two 9’s,
and one sloop or schooner to carry ten 4’s. They were to enlist one
hundred marines for three years. The marines were to be paid £2, 5s.
a month and a bounty of $40, and the seamen £3 a month and a bounty
of $20.[598] During the May session of the legislature in 1781, just
after Arnold’s invasion into Virginia, this act was amended. The
Governor and Council were now directed to procure two galleys and a
number of barges not to exceed eight.[599]
In passing, mention should be made of the service which Maryland
rendered the Continental army in 1781, in transporting troops. When,
in the spring of that year, Lafayette and his army were on their way
to Virginia to attempt the capture of Arnold, Maryland impressed
upwards of one hundred transports, together with three small armed
vessels, which she placed under the command of Captain James
Nicholson. This fleet carried a large part of Lafayette’s troops,
stores, guns, and baggage from the head of Elk to Annapolis. In
August and September the state rendered similar aid to Washington’s
army, which was then on its way to Yorktown. Every vessel in the
state was pressed into service.[600]
During the last year of the war the British were especially annoying
to the trade and coasts of Maryland and Virginia. Fifteen or twenty
small craft which made their headquarters on the islands in the
Chesapeake were very destructive, and their depredations called forth
protective measures not only in Maryland, but in Virginia, as we have
seen. In each state private initiative did what it could to stop the
pillaging, but it was not able to cope with the enemy.
On June 13, 1782, the Maryland legislature appointed William Paca,
Walter Tilghman and Robert Goldsborough commissioners to provide for
the defence of the Bay. They were ordered to procure four barges
and a galley or other vessel of force, to fit them for immediate
service against the enemy, and to turn them over to the Governor and
Council when ready to be employed. The legislature also appointed
William Hanson Harrison, a commissioner to go to Richmond and concert
with the Virginia executive or legislature a joint defence of the
Bay. A new naval establishment was now effected. The Governor and
Council were to raise and officer two hundred and fifty able seamen,
watermen, landsmen, and marines, who were to serve until January
1, 1783, or longer. They were to fix the pay and rations of the
officers. Officers and seamen who should lose a limb, or be otherwise
maimed or hurt, were to receive the same benefits which the state
should hereafter give to her soldiers in the Continental army. The
naval forces were to be subject to the naval rules and regulations
provided by Congress for the Continental navy. A penalty of £50 was
prescribed for enticing seamen away from the state service. The
expense incurred in providing this naval increase was to be met
chiefly from an appropriation of £10,000 and from the sale of the
confiscated property of Tories.[601]
Owing to the continuance of the depredations of the British, the
legislature in its November session of 1782 passed another act for
the defence of the Bay. The Governor and Council were directed to
fit out a certain galley or ship, now building for the state, and
the barges “Somerset,” “Terrible,” “Fearnaught,” and “Defence,” and
enlist three hundred and fifty men to serve until January 1, 1784.
Two-thirds of the proceeds of captures were now to be given to the
captors. The expense of this establishment was to be met by import
duties on rum, brandy, and other distilled spirits; on wine, loaf
sugar, and coffee; and on all goods and merchandise, with certain
exceptions.[602]
The navy of Maryland rendered miscellaneous services. It convoyed
merchantmen, imported and distributed arms and provisions,
transported troops, watched the fleet of the enemy to report its
movements, and defended the trade and coasts of the state. Except
when used for commercial purposes, Maryland’s vessels rarely passed
outside the Capes at the mouth of the Chesapeake. Attempts which
were made to bring about the coöperation of the Maryland and
Virginia fleets did not often succeed. A few small prizes were
taken, but none of them were of much value. In the fall of 1776 the
“Defence,” Captain Cook, cruised as far southward as the West Indies,
and captured five small prizes, laden with logwood, mahogany, indigo,
rum, and sugar.[603] Several sharp encounters between the vessels
of Maryland and the enemy took place in the Bay. As early as March,
1776, the “Defence,” 22, Captain James Nicholson, checked the advance
up the Chesapeake of the British sloop-of-war “Otter,” 10, and
recaptured several prizes.[604] Now and then attempts were made to
dislodge the British from some of the islands in the Bay. So late as
the latter part of March, 1783, the state sent a small schooner and
two barges against a rendezvous of the British on Devil’s Island, one
of the Tangiers.[605]
On November 30, 1782, the Battle of the Barges occurred near the
Tangier islands. The mortality of the Americans in this engagement
was relatively greater than in any other sea fight of the Revolution.
In its carnage and in the bravery displayed by the Americans, this
fight does not suffer from a comparison with that of Jones off
Flamborough Head. The Maryland fleet, which had been joined by a
volunteer Virginia barge, was commanded by Commodore Whaley of the
barge “Protector.” The British fleet of barges was under the command
of Captain Kidd of the “Kidnapper,” mounting 18-pounders. For one
cause or another the “Protector” was the only American barge which
engaged the British fleet. While the “Protector” inflicted much
damage on the vessels of her adversary, she naturally was unable
to fight long against such tremendous odds. An extract from the
simple and pathetic narrative of the fight written by Colonel John
Cropper, a volunteer Virginia officer on board the “Protector,”
possesses interest: “Commodore Whaley was shot down a little before
the enemy boarded, acting the part of a cool, intrepid, gallant
officer. Captain Joseph Handy fell nigh the same time, nobly fighting
with one arm, after the loss of the other. Captain Levin Handy was
badly wounded. There went into action in the Protector sixty-five
men, twenty-five of them were killed and drowned, twenty-nine were
wounded, some of whom are since dead, and eleven only escaped being
wounded, most of whom leaped into the water to save themselves from
the explosion.” Colonel Cropper, to whom, on the death of Whaley, the
command of the “Protector” fell, was wounded three times, “and after
the surrender knocked down by a four-pound rammer.”[606]
During the last years of the war Maryland in her attempts to defend
the Chesapeake, obtained as many as ten barges.[607] She had also in
the naval service at this time a schooner, the “Flying Fish.” The end
of her navy may be dated with the statute passed by her legislature
in May, 1783, which authorized the Intendant to sell “the galley and
the barges.”[608]
North Carolina’s initial step in procuring a naval armament was taken
on December 21, 1775, when her Council of Safety resolved to fit
out three armed vessels for the defence of the trade of the state.
It appointed three Boards of Commissioners, each of which was to
immediately purchase, arm, man, and victual a vessel. The board
for Cape Fear was composed of five men; for Newbern, of eight; and
for Edenton, of six.[609] Since it proved difficult to assemble a
quorum of the Newbern Board, the Council of Safety in June, 1776,
vested its powers in three of its members.[610] In May, 1776, the
Provincial Congress fixed the monthly wages of officers, seamen, and
marines. Captains were to be paid £10; lieutenants, masters, captains
of marines, and doctors, £8 each; marines, £2, 13s., 4d.; “seamen
complete,” £4; “seamen not complete,” £3.[611]
By October, 1776, the Cape Fear Board had fitted out the brigantine
“Washington;” the Newbern Board, the brigantine “Pennsylvania
Farmer;” and the Edenton Board, the brigantine “King Tammany.” The
Council of Safety now ordered these three vessels to protect the
trade of the state at Ocracoke Bar, and to proceed against the
enemy’s Jamaicamen homeward bound from the West Indies. “It may be
necessary to inform you,” it wrote on October 1 to Captain Joshua
Hampstead of the “Pennsylvania Farmer,” “that the Jamaica fleet will
sail for Europe about the middle of this month under the convoy of a
twenty-gun ship only, from the best intelligence we can obtain.”[612]
For one reason or another these three vessels accomplished very
little. For a long time the “Washington,” Captain Edward Ingraham,
could not obtain a crew. The “Pennsylvania Farmer,” Captain Joshua
Hampstead, was idle during the summer of 1776, for lack of shot.
James Davis, one of the Commissioners for fitting out this vessel,
made serious accusations against his fellow Commissioners and the
officers and crew of the vessel. As Davis had suffered real or
supposed injuries at their hands, his words no doubt must be heavily
discounted. In October, 1776, he wrote that the “Pennsylvania Farmer”
lay in Newbern “with 110 men on board at the Expence of near Forty
Pounds per day, upwards of six months; in the most inglorious,
inactive, and dissolute state that perhaps was ever suffered in any
Country.” The crew of the vessel consisted of “men of all nations and
conditions, English, Irish, Scotch, Indians, Men of Wars Men, and
the most abandoned sett of wretches ever collected together. Two of
the officers broke open the Gun Room, and with a number of the men
went off with the Boat, with Intent to join Lord Dunmore’s fleet, and
actually reached Currituck County. They were apprehended, and are
still at large on board. They have wasted near 100 pounds of powder
in wantonly firing at and bringing to all Boats, Canoes, and Vessels
of every sort, even Passengers in the Ferry Boat have been insulted.
Capt. Thos. Shine of the Militia, with his Company on board coming
up to the General Muster, was fired on and a ball passed within a
few inches of his Arm.”[613] These are but few of the derelictions
contained in Davis’s remarkable list. His overstatement of his case
causes one to suspect that he was not entirely free from malice.
By December, 1777, the “Washington” was ordered to be sold; and
commissioners had been appointed to load the other two vessels
and send them on voyages to foreign ports. In April, 1778, the
legislature decided to sell the “Pennsylvania Farmer.” On May 30 this
vessel at a public sale in Edenton “was cried out by John Blackburn
on Mr. Joseph Hewes, after which Mr. Hewes denied having bid the sum
which she was cried out at.”[614]
No other subject of naval interest engaged the attention of North
Carolina so much as the defence of Ocracoke Inlet. It is recalled
that the waters of Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds are separated from
the Atlantic by a long sandbar, which is only at a few points broken
by inlets. These connect the waters of the Atlantic with the waters
of the Sound. The most important inlet at the time of the Revolution
was that of Ocracoke. The protecting and the keeping open of this
entrance was a matter of importance not only to North Carolina,
but to Virginia and the Continental Congress, as well. Most of the
foreign trade of Newbern and Edenton, the two main ports of the
state, passed through this inlet. In a similar way, the trade of
Southern Virginia, outward or inward bound, found it convenient to
use this channel. In the first years of the Revolution, especially
in 1778, not a few goods coming from foreign marts, and destined
for the Continental Army, rather than risk capture off the entrance
to the Chesapeake or the Delaware Bay, entered Ocracoke, passed on
through Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds into Chowan River, and thence
by the branches of this river to the town of South Quay, in southern
Virginia, near the confluence of the Nottaway and Blackwater rivers.
From South Quay the goods were carried by wagons to Suffolk on the
Nansemond, and thence by boat up the Nansemond into the James. This
route constituted the southern division of the so-called “Inland
Navigation.” It was along this road that North Carolina salt pork
and beef, and shoes made by North Carolina Quakers, passed northward
on their way to the “Grand Army.” In 1778 and 1779 South Quay and
Suffolk were important _entrepôts_ for Continental goods.
Since the keeping open of communication through Ocracoke Inlet was
of importance to both North Carolina and Virginia, the two states
concerted a joint naval armament for this purpose. On May 9, 1776,
the North Carolina Provincial Congress appointed Allen and Thomas
Jones to attend the Provincial Congress of Virginia, “for the purpose
of recommending to them the expediency of fitting out two Armed
Vessels at the expense of that Colony, to act in conjunction with the
armed vessels already fitted out by this Colony for the protection of
the trade at Ocracoke.”[615] As her part of the joint undertaking,
Virginia agreed to construct at South Quay two galleys, to be
employed in the defence of the Inlet.
Virginia carried out her promise, and built at the “South Quay
ship yard” two ships, the “Caswell” and “Washington.”[616] North
Carolina ordered her brigantines to defend Ocracoke; and she voted
£2,000 towards the equipping of Virginia’s ships, and appointed
commissioners to invest this money in anchors, guns, rigging,
and canvas.[617] Finally, as we shall see, she maintained at
her expense one of the Virginia ships on the station at Ocracoke
for a considerable period. She did not, however, meet Virginia’s
expectations, which state several times expressed the belief that
North Carolina had not done her share in keeping up the joint
establishment.[618]
Until 1778 the trade which passed through Ocracoke was rather free
from annoyance. It was in January of that year that Joshua Martin,
the late Royal Governor of North Carolina, wrote from New York to
Lord George Germaine in London: “That the contemptible port of
Ocracock has become a great channel of supply to the rebels, while
the more considerable ports have been watched by the King’s ships.
They have received through it considerable importations.”[619] On
January 1, 1778, there arrived at Newbern a sloop from Martinique,
a schooner from St. Eustatius, a schooner with salt from Bermuda, a
French schooner from Hispaniola, and two schooners from the Northern
states; a French scow was at the same time reported at Ocracoke.[620]
A letter from Edenton, dated June 9, informs us that several foreign
vessels were at the Inlet, and that a sloop had recently arrived at
Edenton from France, which had on board for the Continental Congress
thirteen thousand pairs of shoes, a large quantity of clothing, and a
“marble Monument for Genl. Montgomery.”[621]
In the spring of 1778 the North Carolina legislature voted to
purchase from Virginia the ship “Caswell,” stating that it had not
been able to keep its agreement with Virginia in providing a joint
defence of Ocracoke. The legislature fixed the pay of the officers
and seamen on board the “Caswell.”[622] In May this ship, under the
command of Captain Willis Wilson, with one hundred and seventy men
on board, lay off Ocracoke bar. Captain Wilson reported to Governor
Caswell on May 20 that the place was not infested with British
cruisers, and that a French ship and brig lay outside the Inlet,
waiting to come in. In June, however, Wilson wrote that “the enemy
(one ship, two sloops, and a brig) take a peep at us every now and
then, but are not disposed to venture in.”[623] A sloop was now
purchased at Beaufort, to act as a tender for the “Caswell,” and
Richard Ellis was appointed agent at Newbern to purchase provisions
and naval supplies.[624]
In December, 1778, the “Caswell” was still afloat, but by June,
1779, she had sunk at her station at Ocracoke.[625] With the loss of
this vessel North Carolina’s naval enterprises came to an end. Her
attention was now engrossed by threatening invasions of the enemy
from South Carolina.
North Carolina maintained admiralty courts at several ports on
the coast. There were such courts at Beaufort, Bath, Roanoke and
Currituck. As early as April 25, 1776, a special court of admiralty
was appointed to try a prize case.[626] A few of the privateers
of this state rendered valuable services. The brig “Bellona,” 16,
Captain Pendleton, fitted out at Newbern, cruised very successfully.
Georgia’s naval armament was small and unimportant. Her Provincial
Congress, however, commissioned one of the first armed vessels of the
Revolution. In June, 1775, it gave Captains Oliver Bowen and Joseph
Habersham command of a 10-gun schooner, and directed them to assist
Captains Joyner and Barnwell of South Carolina in capturing a certain
British ship, laden with powder, and expected to arrive at Savannah.
On July 10 the joint forces of the two states captured the ship and
obtained thirteen thousand pounds of the highly prized article.
Georgia sent five thousand of her share of nine thousand pounds to
the Continental Congress at Philadelphia.[627]
On July 5, 1776, the Continental Congress resolved to build four
galleys under the direction of the Georgia Provincial Congress.[628]
In August the Committee of Safety was building some row-galleys,
and also fitting out an armed vessel for which purpose £2,000 were
voted. On August 28 the Committee of Safety ordered Captain Bowen to
go to Hispaniola to purchase armed vessels to the amount of £3,000,
materials for fitting out vessels, and various warlike stores. In
October it ordered Captain Pray to go to Cape Francois on a similar
errand. Pray was authorized to mount on his vessel carrying his
purchases to Georgia as many guns as it would conveniently bear.[629]
Whether these two men actually carried out their commissions is not
known.
In the spring of 1777 Georgia had three galleys in service, and
later she had a fourth. These were named the “Washington,” “Lee,”
“Bulloch,” and “Congress.” This little fleet was placed under the
command of Commodore Oliver Bowen, and it was employed on the
Georgia seacoast chiefly in conjunction with the army. Under orders
of President Gwinnett three of the galleys commanded by Commodore
Bowen assisted the army in its unsuccessful expedition against East
Florida in April and May, 1777.[630] In April, 1778, off Frederica,
Georgia, the “Washington,” Captain Hardy, “Lee,” Captain Braddock,
and “Bulloch,” Captain Hatcher, with three hundred troops on board,
captured His Majesty’s brigantine “Hinchinbrooke,” 12, the sloop
“Rebecca,” and a brig.[631]
In the campaign around Savannah early in 1779 all four galleys were
lost. In January the “Washington” and “Bulloch” were stranded near
Ossabaw Island on the Georgia coast, and were burned by their crews,
to prevent their capture. In March, 1779, the “Congress,” Captain
Campbell, and the “Lee,” Captain Milligan, engaged near Yamasee Bluff
the British galleys “Comet” and “Hornet.” The Americans, after losing
three killed, among whom was Captain Campbell, and six wounded,
were forced to abandon their galleys. Out of 104 men on board the
American galleys the British captured but ten.[632] The occupation
of Southern Georgia by the enemy from this time until the end of the
Revolution stopped further naval endeavors on the part of the Patriot
party of the state.
Georgia had a prize court in operation as early as November, 1776.
Her constitution of February, 1777, provided for the hearing of prize
cases by special county courts, much as in Connecticut.[633]
FOOTNOTES:
[588] Force, American Archives, 4th, IV, 744-45; 5th, III, 94.
[589] Force, American Archives, 4th, VI, 1487, 1496.
[590] The following vessels were employed as trading craft:
Sloop “Molly;” schooners “Ninety-Six,” “General Smallwood,” and
“Friendship;” brigs “Sam” and “Friendship,” and ship “Lydia.”
[591] Maryland Archives, XI, XII, XVI, XXI.
[592] Force, American Archives, 5th, III, 128.
[593] Ibid., 1025.
[594] Maryland Archives, XXI, 125.
[595] Force, American Archives, 4th, V, 1596, 1597-98.
[596] Scharf, History of Maryland, II, 205.
[597] Maryland Archives, XXI, 399.
[598] Statutes of Maryland, October session, 1780, chapter XXXIV.
[599] Statutes of Maryland, May session, 1781, chapter XXXIV.
[600] Scharf, History of Maryland, II, 439-40, 456, 461.
[601] Statutes of Maryland, April session, 1782, Chapter III.
[602] Statutes of Maryland, November session, 1782, Chapter XXVI.
[603] Maryland Archives, XII, 500.
[604] Ridgely, Annals of Annapolis, 175-77.
[605] Scharf, History of Maryland, II, 481-82.
[606] Southern Literary Messenger, XXIV, (1857), 218, Colonel John
Cropper to Colonel Williams Davies, his superior in command in the
Continental line.
[607] Scharf enumerates the following barges: “Revenge,” “Terrible,”
“Intrepid,” “Protector,” “Experiment,” “Venus,” “Defence,”
“Reformation,” “Dolphin,” and “Fearnaught.” These barges were about
forty-two feet long, eight feet wide, and three deep. Each carried
about twenty-four oars, from sixteen to thirteen feet long, and
mounted two large guns.—Scharf, History of Maryland, II, 204.
[608] Statutes of Maryland, April session, 1783, chapter XVI, Votes
and Proceedings of Maryland Senate, April session, 1783, 63. For
the pay-rolls of the “Flying Fish,” “Defence,” and several Maryland
barges, see Maryland Archives, XVIII, 606-15.
[609] North Carolina Colonial Records, X, 352.
[610] Ibid., 637.
[611] Ibid., 584.
[612] North Carolina Colonial Records, X, 831-32, 848-49, 875-77;
North Carolina State Records, XI, 356.
[613] North Carolina Colonial Records, X, 834-36.
[614] North Carolina State Records, XII, 173, 244, 623, 796.
[615] Force, American Archives, 4th, V, 1357.
[616] These vessels were at first called galleys.
[617] North Carolina Colonial Records, X, 981.
[618] North Carolina State Records, XIV, 19, 126.
[619] Ibid., XIII, iii-iv.
[620] Ibid., 354.
[621] North Carolina State Records, XIV, 154-55.
[622] Ibid., XII, 574-75, 742, 746; XIII, 138-39, 171-72. In June,
1779, Governor Jefferson of Virginia wrote to Governor Caswell
offering to sell both the “Caswell” and “Washington.” Virginia had
found the trade through Ocracoke inconvenient.—North Carolina State
Records, XIV, 126, 136.
[623] Ibid., XIII, 132, 171.
[624] North Carolina State Records, XIII, 138-39, 174-75.
[625] Ibid., XIV, 136.
[626] Force, American Archives, 4th, V, 1339.
[627] Jones, History of Georgia, II, 181.
[628] Journals of Continental Congress, July 5, 1776.
[629] Collections of Georgia Historical Society, V, part I;
Proceedings of Georgia Council of Safety, 96, 101-02, 113.
[630] Jones, History of Georgia, II, 269.
[631] McCall, History of Georgia, II, 137-38; Moultrie, Memoirs of
American Revolution, II, 375.
[632] McCall, History of Georgia, II, 179, 224-25.
[633] Jameson, Essays in Constitutional History of United States, 10.
CHAPTER XVII
THE MINOR NAVIES OF THE NORTHERN STATES
Rhode Island was the first colony to undertake a defence by means
of armed vessels. Her initial legislation preceded that of the
Continental Congress by almost four months. During 1775 her coasts
and trade were annoyed by the vessels of the enemy. In the early
summer the conduct of Captain James Wallace, the commander of His
Majesty’s frigate “Rose,” was especially vexatious and insulting.
On June 13 Nicholas Cooke, Deputy-Governor of Rhode Island, in
accordance with a resolution of the General Assembly, wrote to
Wallace demanding the immediate restoration of certain captured
vessels, and especially of two packets belonging to citizens of
Providence. The acts of Wallace were obviously in the minds of the
members of the General Assembly, when, on June 15, it ordered the
Committee of Safety to charter and fit out two suitable vessels for
the defence of the trade of Rhode Island.
The General Assembly also appointed a committee of three to appraise
and hire the two vessels. It ordered the larger vessel to be
equipped with eighty men and ten 4-pounders; the smaller vessel was
to be manned with not more than thirty men. It appointed Abraham
Whipple commander of the larger vessel with the rank and power of
commodore over both vessels, and named his lieutenants, master, and
quarter-master. Officers were also chosen for the smaller vessel.
The establishment of the little fleet was assimilated to that of
the land forces of the state. Its cruises were to be determined by
the Lieutenant-General, Brigadier-General, and the Committee of
Safety.[634]
Two sloops, the “Katy” and “Washington,” were at once chartered.
Commodore Whipple tells us that on the same day he received his
commission, June 15, he captured a tender of the frigate “Rose.”[635]
This was the first authorized capture of a naval vessel of the enemy.
During the summer of 1775 the “Katy” and “Washington” cruised chiefly
in Narragansett Bay for the defence of Rhode Island. In August the
“Washington” was sent outside of the Bay to warn incoming vessels
laden with powder and warlike stores of their danger from British
craft. It was at this time that Washington proposed that one of the
sloops should be sent to the Bermudas for powder, which military
necessity was much needed by his army.[636] Commodore Whipple, in the
“Katy,” was dispatched on this errand in September. Arriving at the
Bermudas, Whipple found that he had come too late as the powder had
already been sent to Philadelphia.
It was while the “Katy” was on this errand that Governor Cooke,
on October 10, received orders from the Continental Congress to
send his little fleet to the northward to intercept two British
transports. The “Washington” was unfit for so large an undertaking.
The “Katy,” having arrived from the Bermudas, was ordered on
November 12, 1775, to cruise between Nantucket Shoals and Halifax.
Later her destination was changed, and she was directed to carry to
Philadelphia the seamen which Commodore Esek Hopkins had enlisted
for the Continental service.[637] On the arrival of the “Katy” in
Philadelphia she was taken into the Continental service under the
name of the “Providence.” About the same time the “Washington” was in
all probability returned to her owner, as she had become more or less
unseaworthy.
Meantime the General Assembly had ordered the construction of two
galleys, to carry sixty men, to have fifteen oars on a side, and to
mount one 18-pounder in the bow.[638] The work was placed under the
direction of a superintendent. In January, 1776, the General Assembly
appointed John Grimes commodore of the galleys at a salary of £9 a
month. The galleys were named the “Washington” and “Spitfire.” They
rendered a variety of services in the Bay, cruising in defence of
trade, acting as transports, and covering landing parties sent after
forage and supplies.[639] In July, 1776, they were ordered to proceed
to New York and to assist in the defence of the Hudson.[640] It is
probable that this detail was not carried out. By the summer of 1778
they had been captured or destroyed by the enemy.
From June, 1775, until December, 1776, naval administration in Rhode
Island during the recess of the General Assembly, was vested in the
Committee of Safety, or Recess Committee, as it was sometimes called.
This Committee, as constituted by the session of the General Assembly
beginning on October 31, 1775, consisted of the Governor and
eighteen members, together with such members of the General Assembly
as happened to be present at the meetings of the Committee. Any seven
members constituted a quorum. The composition of the Committee varied
slightly at different times. On December 13, 1776, a Council of War
was appointed, with whom naval administration was now vested. The
Council of War, which included the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor,
consisted of nine members, any five of whom formed a quorum. In
May, 1778, a Council of War comprising twenty-one members, and
representative of the whole state was chosen. The Council of War was
virtually the Committee of Safety under a change of name.[641]
In January, 1776, the General Assembly appointed a committee of three
to draw up a bill establishing a prize court. On March 18 a bill
became a law which established a court of justice for the trying
of prize cases. It was to be presided over by a judge, appointed
annually. The same act established state privateering. Privateersmen
were to enter into bond for £2,000 to observe the provisions of
the act and the instructions of the Governor. They were to be
commissioned by the Governor. In May, 1776, this act was brought into
conformity with the resolutions of Congress on the same subject.
Captors were given one-half of all armed vessels and one-third of all
other prizes.[642] A list containing the names of 193 privateers from
Rhode Island has been compiled.[643]
In June, 1777, the General Assembly undertook to add two armed
vessels to the naval force of the state, but for some reason its
order was not carried out.[644] The same resolution directed the
Council of War to procure three merchantmen to be used in importing
supplies. The ship “Aurora” and sloop “Diamond” were two of the
vessels purchased for commercial purposes.
For a time Rhode Island relied in part for her naval defence upon the
two Continental frigates, “Providence” and “Warren,” which were built
at Providence in 1776, and officered and manned largely with Rhode
Island men. The General Assembly and the Council of War furthered
the work of the local naval committee which had charge of the
construction of the frigates. These two ships left Providence early
in 1778. During 1778 and 1779 the state continued to depend upon
Continental assistance.
It is recalled that during the summer of 1778 Washington concerted
with the French fleet a campaign to drive the British from Newport.
General Sullivan commanded the land forces of the Americans. On June
25, 1778, Congress directed the Navy Board at Boston to build three
galleys, or procure three suitable vessels, for the defence of the
Providence, Warren, and Taunton rivers in Rhode Island, if upon
advising with the Rhode Island Council of War and General Sullivan,
the Navy Board should find such measure expedient. At a conference
of the Navy Board, the Council of War, and Sullivan it was decided
to procure one large ship. Such a vessel was obtained by Sullivan,
but he was compelled soon to return it to its owners.[645] With the
consent and recommendation of the Rhode Island authorities, Sullivan,
in November, procured the “Pigot” galley, and in the spring of 1779
the sloop “Argo.”[646] First the “Pigot,” and later the “Argo,” was
placed under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Silas Talbot, of the
Continental army.
Already Talbot had been twice recommended by Congress for promotion
on account of gallant conduct in naval exploits. The Rhode Island
General Assembly had recognized his bravery in capturing the “Pigot”
galley off the coast of Rhode Island in October, 1778, by voting him
a “genteel silver-hilted sword.” As commander of the “Pigot” and
later of the “Argo,” Talbot was under the orders of Sullivan, and
of Gates, Sullivan’s successor. During the summer of 1779 Talbot in
the “Argo,” assisted at times by privateers and the state vessels of
Massachusetts, captured fifteen small prizes.[647] As a reward for
the conspicuous ability which he showed in this work, Congress made
him a captain in the Continental navy. Early in 1780 the “Pigot” and
“Argo” closed their services under Continental and state auspices.
Rhode Island’s last naval enterprise was made in 1781. In May of
that year the General Assembly appointed a committee to “charter
a suitable fast sailing Vessel, in order to be fitted out as a
Cruiser to clear the Coast of the piratical Boats that infest the
same.” The committee was voted $5,000, and was ordered to man the
vessel, appoint its officers, and send it to sea. It was directed
to procure a small vessel of thirty to fifty tons burden, mounting
four 3-pounders or 4-pounders. It at once obtained the sloop “Rover,”
which it placed under the command of Captain Richard Olney.
The “Rover” served the state but a short time, and accomplished
little.[648]
New York was led to purchase her first armed vessel in order to
prevent persons inimical to the liberties of the American Colonies
from supplying the Ministerial army and navy with provisions. It
was for this purpose that her Provincial Congress on December 20,
1775, appointed a committee of two to buy, arm, and fit out a proper
vessel at a cost not to exceed £600. The committee purchased the
sloop “General Schuyler,” and by March, 1776, had the vessel ready
for service. James Smith, who in the summer of 1775 had served as
“Commodore on the Lakes,” that is, Lakes Champlain and George,
was appointed commander of the “General Schuyler.” In March the
Provincial Congress ordered the sloop “Bishop Landaff” to be fitted
out.[649]
On March 11, 1776, the Provincial Congress appointed five of its
members, all from New York, a Marine Committee. It empowered this
Committee “to take such measures, and give such directions, and
employ such persons for the protection or advantage of trade as they
may think proper, useful, or necessary.” The Marine Committee was a
permanent navy board vested with the management and direction of the
naval affairs of the state. Three of its members formed a quorum.
Thomas Randall was its chairman. It was authorized to keep secret
such matters as it saw fit. It reported to the Provincial Congress,
when the Congress was in session, and at other times to the Committee
of Safety. It was directed to apply to the Provincial Congress when
in need of advice.[650] In March and April it purchased the sloop
“Montgomery,” and the schooner “General Putnam,” and sold the “Bishop
Landaff.”[651]
On April 17 the New York Committee of Safety issued commissions
to Captain William Rodgers of the “Montgomery,” Captain James
Smith of the “General Schuyler,” and Captain Thomas Cregier of the
“General Putnam.” Rather singularly, these captains executed bonds
in favor of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress,
and were given the commissions of Continental privateers. The naval
establishment of New York was a mixed one. Her fleet was governed by
the Continental naval rules and regulations. The enlisting contract
of the “Montgomery” reads at points as if the vessel belonged to the
Continental Congress: “The said William Rogers, for and in behalf of
himself and the said Thirteen Colonies of North America, doth hereby
covenant and agree to and with said officers, seamen, and marines” to
advance a month’s wages. In sharing prizes, in granting bounties to
wounded soldiers, and in rewarding exceptional merit, the contract
followed the naval regulations of the Continental Congress.[652] On
the other hand, the three vessels were owned, fitted out, officered,
and manned by New York, which state directed their cruises, and paid
their officers and seamen. This mixed establishment may in part be
explained by the fact that at first New York’s intention was to have
Congress take her vessels into the Continental service.[653]
On the evacuation of Boston by the British on March 17, 1776,
Washington at once proceeded to New York, whither, it is recollected,
the scene of war soon shifted. In April Washington asked for the
loan of the New York vessels to assist in the defence of New York
city. After some disagreement as to the terms upon which he should
receive them, the “General Putnam” and the “General Schuyler” were
turned over to him.[654] Hereafter the state seems not to have had
the direction of the “General Schuyler.” In October, 1776, a mutiny
having occurred on board the “General Putnam,” the New York Committee
of Safety ordered this vessel to be sold.[655]
New York’s fleet captured some eight or ten prizes. It cruised
chiefly in the waters surrounding Long Island. The “Montgomery” had
best success. On April 19, 1776, the Marine Committee reported to the
Committee of Safety a draft of instructions for Captain Rodgers. He
was ordered to cruise between Sandy Hook and Cape May, or from Sandy
Hook to the east end of Long Island, and he was cautioned to always
keep “some inlet under your lee, so that you may secure a retreat
from a superior force.”[656] Prizes were to be sent to some place
of safety in the United Colonies. The “Montgomery” cruised in this
general region until June, 1777; in July she was sold for £3,550. She
captured several merchantmen, which were libeled in the admiralty
courts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maryland. In the condemning
and selling of these prizes, New York’s interests were attended to by
agents appointed for the purpose. The “Montgomery’s” most valuable
prize was the schooner “Hannah,” libeled in Baltimore, which, with
her cargo of clothing, cloths, and provisions, sold for £11,281.
Another prize, the “Minerva,” with a cargo of salt, was tried by the
court at the same time with the “Hannah,” and was freed; whereupon,
Francis Lewis, a delegate of New York to the Continental Congress,
which was then in session in Baltimore, appealed the case of the
“Minerva” to Congress.[657]
In August, 1776, the Secret Committee, which was assisting in the
defence of the Hudson, was fitting out two small armed sloops, the
“Camden” and “Hudson.”[658] As late as January, 1777, the Committee
of Safety was planning for a naval armament; orders were then given
for cutting the timbers for a 74-gun ship.[659] The permanent
occupation of New York city by the British stopped New York’s naval
enterprises on state account. She continued, however, to grant a few
privateering commissions, until the end of the war. In passing, one
should mention that in 1776 New York contributed officers, seamen,
and naval supplies to Arnold’s campaign on lakes Champlain and
George. By the terms of New York’s Constitution of 1777 the Governor
was “commander-in-chief of all the militia and admiral of the navy of
this state.” The Constitution implied that there was to be a Court
of Admiralty, although it did not make definite provision for such
court.[660]
New Hampshire’s only naval undertaking was her participation, at the
suggestion of Massachusetts, in the Penobscot expedition of July,
1779. She contributed to the ill-starred fleet the “Hampden,” 22,
Captain Titus Salter, which vessel was captured by the British.[661]
On July 3, 1776, New Hampshire passed an act “to encourage the fixing
out of Armed Vessels to defend the seacoast of America, and to cruise
on the enemies of the United Colonies, as also for erecting a court
to try and condemn all Ships and other Vessels.” This act was modeled
on similar acts of Massachusetts. It established state privateering.
A “Court Maritime,” consisting of one judge, was erected at
Portsmouth to try cases of capture. Salvage was prescribed in
accordance with the proportions fixed by the Continental Congress.
In cases of prizes captured by a Continental vessel, appeals lay from
the Court Maritime to the Continental Congress.[662]
In July, 1776, a Committee of Newark, New Jersey, requested the New
Jersey Provincial Congress to build four “gondolas,” or row-galleys,
to be mounted with cannon, and to ply between the mouths of the
Passaic and Hackensack rivers and the town of Perth Amboy. The
Provincial Congress referred the proposition to a committee of
four. It finally ended the business by referring the report of this
committee to the Continental Congress.[663]
Until October 5, 1776, when New Jersey passed an act establishing
an admiralty court, her Provincial Congress decided prize cases. So
early as February 15, 1776, a committee of the Provincial Congress,
which had been appointed to draft an ordinance for erecting a Court
of Admiralty, reported that it had consulted William Livingston,
one of the New Jersey delegates to the Continental Congress, on the
subject, and had proposed to him, whether it would not be of manifest
advantage to the Colonies if “Congress should, by one general
ordinance, institute the powers and mode of erecting a Court of
Admiralty to be adopted by all the Colonies.” Livingston agreed to
take the first opportunity for proposing the matter to Congress.[664]
Nothing came of the recommendation.
FOOTNOTES:
[634] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, June, 1775.
[635] Staples, Annals of Providence, 265.
[636] Force, American Archives, 4th, III, 69.
[637] Ibid., 36-37, 461, 653; Collections of Rhode Island Historical
Society, VI, 134-35; see Chapter I, page 55.
[638] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, August, 1775.
[639] Providence Gazette, April 20, April 27, 1776; Acts and Resolves
of Rhode Island, November, December, 1776; Arnold, History of Rhode
Island, II, 397.
[640] Rhode Island Colonial Records, VII, 582.
[641] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, December, 1776, May, 1778.
[642] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, March, May, 1776.
[643] W. P. Sheffield, Rhode Island Privateers and Privateersmen.
[644] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, June, 1777.
[645] Publications of Rhode Island Historical Society, VIII, papers
of William Vernon and Navy Board, 249, 250.
[646] Journals of Rhode Island Council of War, July 17, August 24,
November 11, 1781; Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, February, 1779.
[647] Providence Gazette, August 14, September 25, 1779; Connecticut
Gazette, June 24, 1779; Pennsylvania Packet, September 9, 1779.
[648] Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, May and October, 1781.
[649] Journals of New York Provincial Congress, December 20, 1775,
March 9, 1776.
[650] Journals of New York Provincial Congress, March 11, 1776.
[651] Journals of New York Committee of Safety, April 25, 1776.
[652] Journals of New York Committee of Safety, April 19, 1776;
Fernow, New York in Revolution, 530-33.
[653] Journals of New York Provincial Congress, January 22, 1776.
[654] Journals of New York Committee of Safety, April 24, May 10,
1776.
[655] Ibid., September 21, September 24, October 7, 1776.
[656] Ibid., April 19, 1776.
[657] Journals of New York Committee of Safety, February 13, 1777;
Journals of New York Provincial Congress, April 1, 1777.
[658] Journals of New York Provincial Congress, August 16, 1776.
[659] Journals of New York Committee of Safety, January 15, 1777.
[660] New York Constitution of 1777. See Carson, Supreme Court
of United States, p. 45, for further references to the admiralty
legislation of New York.
[661] New Hampshire Archives, VIII, 106, 186, 195. In March, 1776,
the New Hampshire House of Representatives appointed a committee
of three to look out for an armed vessel to guard the coast. It is
believed that no vessel was procured.
[662] Force, American Archives, 5th, I, 90-96.
[663] Minutes of Provincial Congress and Council of Safety of New
Jersey, 1775-1776, 510, 520, 525, 528.
[664] Minutes of Provincial Congress and Council of Safety of New
Jersey, 1775-1776, 370-71, 396, 479.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
A BIBLIOGRAPHY
THE CONTINENTAL NAVY
MANUSCRIPT SOURCES
Adams, John. Letters for 1775 and 1776, deposited for the present
by Charles Francis Adams with the Massachusetts Historical Society,
Boston.
A few letters are valuable for the early history of the
Continental Navy.
Continental Congress. Manuscript Journals.
Supplements and corrects the printed journals.
Continental Congress. Records and Papers, formerly found in the
Bureau of Rolls and Library, Department of State, Washington;
but now in most part in the Library of Congress, Division of
Manuscripts. There are many volumes of these documents. Most of the
material relating to the navy is found in the following volumes:
No. 28, 1 vol., Reports of committees of Congress on naval
affairs, 1776-1786.
No. 37, 1 vol., Reports of Marine Committee and Board of
Admiralty, 1776-1780.
No. 50, 1 vol., Letters of Oliver Pollock, Commercial Agent
at New Orleans, to President and to committees of Congress,
1776-1782.
No. 58, 1 vol., Letters and Papers of John Hancock.
No. 78, 24 vols., Letters to President of Congress.
No. 90, 1 vol., Letters of the commercial agents at Martinique to
President of Congress.
No. 137, 3 vols., Letters and Reports of Robert Morris, Agent of
Marine.
No. 138, 3 vols., Reports of the Board of Treasury, 1784-1789.
Nos. 82-96, 132, 168, and 193.
The Records and Papers of the Continental Congress are
especially valuable for the years from 1780 to 1783. They
contain many important letters of John Paul Jones. The letters
of Pollock give a full account of his services at New Orleans.
Deane, Silas. Papers in the library of the Connecticut Historical
Society, Hartford.
A few of these papers relate to the navy.
Force Transcripts. These are copies of many of the Records and
Papers of the Continental Congress, made by Peter Force, and
now in the possession of the Library of Congress, Division of
Manuscripts.
The copying is accurately done. The pagination often differs
from that of the originals.
Hopkins, Esek. Letters and papers, in the library of the Rhode
Island Historical Society, Providence.
Quite valuable for 1775, 1776, and 1777. The best of them have
been printed in Edward Field’s Esek Hopkins.
Jones, John Paul. Manuscripts, in the Division of Manuscripts,
Library of Congress. Have been excellently catalogued by C. H.
Lincoln in Calendar of John Paul Jones Manuscripts.
An important original source for the naval history of the
Revolution. A number of the most important manuscripts,
however, have been published, notably in Sands’s Life and
Correspondence of John Paul Jones.
Marine Committee Letter Book. Letters of the Marine Committee and
the Board of Admiralty, in the Division of Manuscripts, Library
of Congress.
Quite the most important manuscript source for the history of
the Continental navy from 1776 to 1780. Contains 217 pages,
folio, and 505 letters. They are copies of the originals. Of
these letters, 371 were written by the Marine Committee between
August 22, 1776, and November 20, 1779; and 134 by the Board of
Admiralty between December 10, 1779, and September 19, 1780.
Eighty-six letters are addressed to the Navy Board at Boston.
Hitherto the Marine Committee Letter Book has been little used.
Tucker, Samuel. Papers, in the Harvard Library, Cambridge.
Valuable for the career of Samuel Tucker, a captain in the
Continental navy. The best of the papers have been published by
J. H. Sheppard in his Life of Samuel Tucker, 1868. (See entry
under Sheppard.)
Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Division of Manuscripts, Library of
Congress
Of noteworthy importance is a list of commissioned officers in
the Continental navy, far more complete than any yet published.
PRINTED SOURCES
Adams, John. Works, 10 vols. Boston, 1856.
Almost the only source for the debates in Congress on naval
affairs in the fall of 1775. His Notes on Debates are more
reliable than his Autobiography.
Appleton. Cyclopedia of American Biography. 7 vols. New York,
1898-1900.
Contains a little information of interest to students of
naval history.
Annual Register for 1775-1783. London.
Of slight value for naval history.
Bancroft, George. History of the United States. 6 vols. New
York, 1884-85.
A few references to naval history.
Barney, Mary. Memoirs of Commodore Joshua Barney. Boston, 1832.
Not satisfactory.
Beatson, Robert. Naval and Military Memoirs of Great Britain,
1727-1783. London, 1804.
Contains accounts of some of the important naval engagements
of the Revolution.
Bigelow, John. Works of Benjamin Franklin. 10 vols. New York,
1887-88.
Contains valuable original material for Franklin’s naval
services in Paris.
Bolton, C. K. Private Soldier under Washington, New York, 1902.
A few references to the navy.
Boston Gazette for 1775-1783. Boston.
Of great value for a history of the movements of the
Continental vessels. In its advertisements of libeled
prizes, one of the very best sources for the work of the
Massachusetts privateers.
British Marine Encyclopedia, in Hogg’s Naval Magazine for 1801.
London.
Excellent for definitions of naval terms used in the British
navy.
Buell, A. C. Paul Jones, Founder of the American Navy. 2 vols.
New York, 1900.
Very interesting; attractive style. Contains many
inaccuracies. Chapter II, Volume I, entitled, Founding of the
American Navy, is in no small part fiction.
Canadian Archives, report on, for 1895. Ottawa.
Under the subject Prince Edward Island, will be found
references to Broughton and Selman’s expedition in 1775.
Carson, H. L. Supreme Court of the United States. Philadelphia,
1902.
Contains a brief account of the prize courts of the
Revolution.
Caulkins, Frances M. History of New London, Connecticut. New
London, 1852.
A few valuable references to the Continental navy.
Clark, Thomas. Naval History of the United States.
Philadelphia, 1814.
The earliest history of the United States navy. Has
considerable merit. Gives sources of his information. His
interviews with naval officers constitute original material.
Clowes, W. L. Royal Navy. 7 vols. Boston and London, 1897-1903.
Chapter XXXI, Volume III, and Chapter I, Volume IV, are
important sources for the engagements of Continental vessels
with vessels of the Royal Navy. Scientific treatment. Some
sources have been used which are not accessible in America.
The most important contribution to the history of the
Continental navy since Cooper’s naval history, written in
1839.
Connecticut Colonial Records for 1775-1776; Connecticut State
Records for 1776-1780. Hartford, 1890, 1894-95.
Contains references to the Continental vessels built in
Connecticut.
Connecticut Gazette for 1775-1783. New London.
Contains important bits of information relating to the
movements of the Continental vessels.
Connecticut Historical Society Collections, vol. VIII.
Hartford, 1901.
Contains rolls of the Connecticut companies who served in the
navy on Lake Champlain.
Continental Congress, Journals of, for 1775-1788. 13 vols.
Philadelphia, 1777-88.
The most valuable and extensive source for the history of
naval legislation and administration during the Revolution.
The edition of W. C. Ford, now being published by the Library
of Congress, supersedes previous editions.
Continental Congress, Secret Journals, for 1775-1788. 4 vols.
Boston, 1821.
Contributes some information on the work of naval agents
abroad.
Continental Journal and Weekly Advertiser for 1776-1783. Boston.
Supplements the information found in the Boston Gazette.
Cooper, James Fenimore. History of the Navy of the United
States of America. London, 1839.
Several editions of this work have been issued. The first
part treats of the Continental navy. This varies little in
the different editions. Clear and interesting style. The most
satisfactory account of the engagements of the Continental
navy. Treats of its fights with merchantmen and privateers,
as well as with the vessels of the Royal Navy. More complete
than Clowes, but not so scientific.
Deane Papers. Collections of the New York Historical Society. 5
vols. New York, 1886-90.
Valuable for the naval services of Silas Deane in France.
Emmons, Lieutenant G. F. Navy of the United States. Washington,
1853.
Names of the Continental vessels and their prizes arranged
in tables. Treatment statistical. Valuable, but far from
complete. Privateers of the Revolution similarly treated.
Field, Edward. Esek Hopkins. Providence, 1898.
Valuable. Prints many important Hopkins papers.
Field, Edward. State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations. 3 vols. Boston and Syracuse.
Contains some additional information relating to the early
life of Esek Hopkins.
Force, Peter. American Archives. 9 vols. Folio. Washington,
1837-53.
A source of very great very great value for naval history
during 1775 and 1776. Prints the chief public records
for these years, together with important letters and
miscellaneous papers.
Ford, W. C. Writings of George Washington. 14 vols. New York
and London, 1889-93.
One of the chief sources for the history of Washington’s
fleets.
Ford, W. C. Letters of William Lee. 3 vols. Brooklyn, 1891.
Valuable for the work of the commercial agents in France.
Goldsborough’s Naval Chronicle. Washington, 1824.
Griffin, M. I. J. Commodore John Barry. Philadelphia, 1903.
Especially valuable for the numerous documents which are
printed.
Hale, Edward Everett and Edward Everett, jr. Franklin in
France. 2 vols. Boston, 1887.
Prints many documents. Chapter XI, American Prisoners,
Chapter XVI, Privateers from Dunkirk, and Chapter XVII,
Captain Landais, Volume I, are of special interest to
students of naval history.
Hamersly, L. R. Naval Encyclopedia. Philadelphia, 1881.
Suggestive.
Hamilton, J. C. Works of Alexander Hamilton. 7 vols. New York,
1850-51.
Contains Hamilton’s views on single-headed executives.
Hatch, L. C. Administration of the American Revolutionary Army,
Harvard Historical Studies, X. New York and London, 1904.
Suggestive for the Continental navy.
Independent Chronicle and Universal Advertiser for 1775-1783,
Boston.
Supplements the Boston Gazette.
Ingraham, E. D. Papers relating to Silas Deane. Philadelphia,
1855-57.
Relate to his controversy with Congress.
Jameson, J. F. Essays in the Constitutional History of the
United States. Baltimore, 1886.
Chapter I gives a good account of the Continental prize
courts. Chapter II treats of the administrative organs of the
Continental Congress. Scientific.
Johnston’s Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay. 4
vols. New York, 1890-93.
Volume I contains a valuable letter of Jay’s relating to
naval administration.
Jones, C. H. Gustavus Conyngham. Philadelphia, 1903.
A brief, but good account.
King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions for 1772. London.
Gives the rules and regulations of the Royal Navy at the
opening of the Revolution.
Lincoln, C. H. Calendar, John Paul Jones Manuscripts.
Washington, 1903.
Excellent catalogue and digest of the Jones manuscripts in
the Library of Congress. Dr. Lincoln’s purpose is to enlarge
his calendar so as to include the additional Jones material
which is found in the Records and Papers of the Continental
Congress.
Lossing, B. J. Field-Book of the American Revolution. 2 vols.
New York, 1851-52.
Slight naval information.
Maclay, E. S. History of the United States Navy. 2 vols. New
York, 1894.
Narrative of the Continental navy somewhat popular.
Massachusetts Historical Society Collections. Boston, 1806-.
Brief references to the Continental navy.
New England Historical and Genealogical Register for 1865.
Boston.
Contains a list of prisoners confined at Mill prison,
Plymouth, during the Revolution.
New Hampshire Gazette for 1775-1783. Portsmouth.
Contains information concerning the Continental vessels which
were built in New Hampshire, or which arrived at Portsmouth.
New London County Historical Society, Records and Papers.
Volume I. New London, 1890-94.
Gives a most excellent account of the fight between the
Continental frigate “Trumbull” and the Liverpool privateer
“Watt.”
Outlook, January 3, 1903. Tragedy of the Lost Commission by
James Barnes.
A brief, but excellent, account of the exploits of Captain
Gustavus Conyngham.
Pennsylvania Archives, 1st Ser. 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1852-56.
Of special value for the movements of the Continental vessels
in the Delaware river and bay.
Pennsylvania Packet for 1775-1783. Philadelphia.
Valuable for the movements of the Continental vessels and
the Pennsylvania privateers. The prizes which were sent into
Philadelphia are advertised in its columns.
Providence Gazette for 1775-1783. Providence.
Valuable for Continental vessels in 1775 and 1776. Contains
names of prizes.
Rhode Island Historical Society Publications, VIII. Providence,
1900. Papers of William Vernon and the Navy Board.
A valuable source of information for the work of the Navy
Board at Boston. A number of important letters and documents
are printed.
Root, M. P. Chapter Sketches of Connecticut Daughters of the
American Revolution. New Haven, 1901.
Contains the best account of the life of Nathaniel Shaw, jr.,
naval agent at New London.
Royal Navy, List of. New York, 1782.
Sands, R. Life and Correspondence of John Paul Jones. New York,
1830.
Valuable reprints.
Scribner’s Magazine for 1898. New York. John Paul Jones in the
American Revolution, by Captain A. T. Mahan.
Contains a technical account of the fight between the “Bon
Homme Richard” and the “Serapis.”
Sheppard, J. H. Commodore Samuel Tucker. Boston, 1868.
A good account of Tucker’s life. Reprints the best of the
Tucker papers found in the Harvard Library.
Sherburne, J. H. Life of John Paul Jones. New York, 1825, 1851.
A fair account.
Sparks, Jared. American Biography, 2nd Ser. Vol. IX. Gammell’s
Life of Samuel Ward. Boston, 1846.
Contains a bit of important information with reference to the
founding of the navy.
Sparks, Jared. Gouverneur Morris. 3 vols. Boston, 1832.
Volume I contains Morris’s description of an ideal secretary
of the navy.
Spears, J. R. History of Our Navy. 5 vols. New York, 1897-99.
The account of the Continental navy is somewhat popular.
Staples, W. R. Annals of Providence. Providence, 1843.
Of some value for 1775 and 1776.
Stevens’s Facsimiles. 24 portfolios. London, 1889-95.
Valuable for the diplomatic relations between England and
France for 1776 and 1777, and for the movements of American
vessels in European waters during these years.
Sumner, W. G. Financier and Finances of the American
Revolution. 2 vols. New York, 1891.
Gives a few facts about Morris’s career as Agent of Marine.
Town, Ithiel. Some Details of the American Revolution. New
York, 1835.
Of slight value for naval history.
Waite, H. E. Origin of the American Navy. Boston, 1890.
Contains letters written by John Adams, Elbridge Gerry, and
John Langton in 1813. These relate chiefly to the services of
Washington’s fleet at Boston.
Wells, W. V. Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams. 3 vols.
Boston, 1865.
Adds to our knowledge of Samuel Adams as member of the Marine
Committee.
Wharton, Francis. Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence,
1775-1783. 6 vols. Washington, 1889.
Of primary importance for the history of the naval services
of American representatives in foreign countries.
Williams, Gomer. Liverpool Privateers. Liverpool, 1897.
Valuable for the sea fights of the Liverpool privateers.
Winsor, Justin. Narrative and Critical History of the United
States. 8 vols. Boston and New York, 1884-89.
Volume VI contains a history of the Revolutionary navy by E.
E. Hale.
Brief and suggestive.
THE STATE NAVIES
THE NAVY OF MASSACHUSETTS
Amory’s James Sullivan. 2 vols. Boston, 1859.
Throws some light upon Massachusetts’s prize courts.
Austin’s Elbridge Gerry. 2 vols. Boston, 1828-29.
Contains information in respect to prize courts.
Boston Gazette for 1775-1783. Boston.
Of the highest value for the cruises, engagements, and
prizes of the Massachusetts navy.
Clowes. W. L. Royal Navy. 7 vols. Boston and London,
1897-1903.
Volume IV contains an account of the naval battle at the
mouth of the Penobscot.
Continental Journal and Weekly Advertiser for 1775-1783.
Boston.
Supplements the Boston Gazette.
Goodell, Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts. 5 vols. 1869-86.
Volume V contains the legislation of Massachusetts with
reference to prize courts. The notes to the laws are a
valuable guide to the sources of the events which led to
the passage of the laws.
Maclay, E. S. History of American Privateering. New York,
1899.
Of value for the Revolutionary privateers of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Historical Society Collections. 67 vols.
Boston, 1792-1894.
Contains references to the Penobscot expedition.
Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings. 30 vols.
Boston, 1859-94.
Contains information upon the Penobscot expedition.
Massachusetts, Journals of the House of Representatives for
1775-1783.
Contemporaneous print. Incomplete. The journals found in
the state library may be supplemented by those found in the
library of the Boston Athenaeum.
Massachusetts, Records of the Council for 1775-1776.
Are printed in part in Force’s American Archives.
Massachusetts, Journals of the Third Provincial Convention,
1775.
Are printed in Force’s American Archives. The chief sources
for the early civil history of the Massachusetts navy are
the Journals of the Third Provincial Convention, Journals
of the House, Records of the Council, and the Resolves of
the General Court.
Massachusetts, Records of the General Court for 1775-1783.
MSS.
Supplements the Journals and the Resolves.
Massachusetts Resolves, for 1775-1783.
Contemporaneous print. A most valuable source. Most of the
naval legislation of Massachusetts was passed in the form
of Resolves, and not Laws.
Massachusetts Revolutionary Archives, MSS.
A very extensive and valuable source. Many volumes contain
material relating to the navy. Volumes XXXIX, XL, and XLIV
have the greatest value. They contain the rolls of naval
vessels, letters of officers,
and miscellaneous papers. Volume CXLV has many documents
relating to the Penobscot expedition. The Archives are
rich in material relating to privateers. The Board of War
Letters, Board of War Minutes, and Board of War Orders
contain much naval material. An Index compiled by Justin
Winsor affords a valuable key to the Archives.
Pickering and Upham’s Timothy Pickering. 4 vols. Boston,
1867, 1874.
Of value for the work of the Massachusetts prize courts.
Virginia Gazette for 1779. Williamsburg.
Prints a valuable letter about Massachusetts privateers.
Weymouth Historical Society Publications. 2 vols. Boston,
1881-85.
Volume I gives the best account of the Penobscot
expedition, and prints the original Journal of General
Solomon Lovell kept on the expedition.
Winsor, Justin. Narrative and Critical History of the United
States. 8 vols. Boston and New York, 1884-89.
Article on the Revolutionary navy by E. E. Hale, in Volume
VI, contains information on the Massachusetts navy.
Valuable bibliography.
Works of John Adams. 10 vols. Boston, 1856.
Gives John Adams’s opinion of the Massachusetts statute
establishing privateering.
THE NAVY OF CONNECTICUT
Caulkins, Frances M. History of Norwich. Norwich, 1845.
Contains information relative to the naval part which
Norwich and Norwich men played in the Revolution.
Connecticut Revolutionary Archives. MSS.
Contains much miscellaneous information relating to the
Connecticut navy. Volumes VIII and IX contain valuable
material concerning the prizes captured by Connecticut
vessels.
Connecticut Colonial Records for 1775-1776. Hartford, 1890.
Valuable for the beginnings of the Connecticut navy.
Connecticut Gazette for 1775-1779. New London.
The best newspaper for naval news in the state. Captured
prizes are advertised in its columns.
Connecticut Historical Society Collections. 8 vols. Hartford,
1860-1901.
Volume II contains a description of Bushnell’s submarine
boat.
Connecticut in the Revolution. Hartford, 1889.
Of slight naval value.
Connecticut Journal for 1775-1779. New Haven.
Supplements the Connecticut Gazette in a few particulars,
but contains much less news.
Connecticut State Records, 1776-1779. 2 vols. Hartford,
1894-95.
Of great value for the years covered.
Force, Peter. American Archives. 9 vols. Folio. Washington,
1837-53.
Contains miscellaneous information relating to the
Connecticut navy.
Ford, W. C. Writings of George Washington. 14 vols. New York
and London, 1889-93.
Volume X contains Washington’s account of Bushnell’s
submarine boat.
Hartford Courant for 1775-1779. Hartford.
For naval news, the newspaper in the state next in
importance to the Connecticut Gazette.
New London County Historical Society. Records and Papers.
Volume I. New London, 1890-94.
Valuable. Contains a fair account of the Connecticut navy,
and a list of Connecticut privateers.
Wharton, Francis. Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence. 6
vols. Washington, 1889.
Volume II has a reference to the voyage of the “Spy” to
France in 1778.
THE NAVY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Almon’s Remembrancer for 1778. London.
Valuable for an account of the British raid to the north of
Philadelphia in May, 1778.
Bioren, Laws of Pennsylvania. 4 vols. Philadelphia, 1810.
Contains statutes relating to the establishment of prize
courts.
Barney, Mary. Memoirs of Commodore Barney. Boston, 1832.
Of value for a history of the “Hyder Ally.”
Jameson, J. F. Essays in the Constitutional History of the
United States. Baltimore, 1886.
Chapter I, Predecessor of the Supreme Court, gives an
excellent account of the capture of the sloop “Active” by
the brig “Convention.”
Pennsylvania Archives. 1st and 2nd Ser. 31 vols. Philadelphia
and Harrisburg, 1852-90.
The most important source after the Colonial records.
Volume I of the second series contains the minutes of the
Pennsylvania Navy Board, a brief historical account of the
navy, and a list of Pennsylvania privateers.
Pennsylvania Colonial Records. 16 vols. Philadelphia, 1852-53.
A source of great value for the history of the Pennsylvania
navy.
Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser for 1775-1783.
Philadelphia.
Supplements the Pennsylvania Packet.
Pennsylvania Packet for 1775-1783. Philadelphia.
Valuable for the prizes captured by Pennsylvania naval
vessels and by privateers. Not printed while the British
occupied Philadelphia.
Scharf and Westcott. History of Pennsylvania. 3 vols.
Philadelphia, 1884.
Contains bits of naval information.
Wallace, J. W. Colonel William Bradford. Philadelphia, 1884.
Valuable for the naval campaigns around Philadelphia.
THE NAVY OF VIRGINIA
Almon’s Remembrancer for 1779 and 1781. London.
Contains original material for the raids into Virginia of
Matthews and Collier, and of Arnold and Phillips.
Calendar of Virginia State Papers. 10 vols. Richmond, 1875-92.
Volumes I-III throw light upon the years 1780-1783. Volume
VIII, pages 75-240, prints the Journals of the Committee of
Safety of Virginia, February 7 to July 5, 1776.
Force, Peter. American Archives. 9 vols. Folio. Washington,
1837-53.
Prints important state records.
Ford, W. C. Writings of Jefferson. 10 vols. New York and
London, 1892-99.
Of value for Jefferson’s naval services while governor of
Virginia.
Hening’s Statutes of Virginia. 13 vols. Philadelphia and New
York, 1823.
A most important source for naval legislation and
administration in Virginia.
Lull, E. P. History of the United States Navy yard at
Gosport, Virginia. Washington, 1874.
Gives the early history of the navy yard at Norfolk.
Maryland Archives, 21 vols. Baltimore, 1883-1901.
Contains information about Commodore Boucher of the
Virginia navy.
North Carolina Records. 18 vols. Raleigh, 1886-1900.
Contains information upon the raid of Matthews and Collier.
Rowland, K. M. George Mason. 2 vols. New York, 1892.
Volume I is valuable for Virginia’s “Potomac river fleet.”
Southern Literary Messenger for 1857. Richmond.
Contains a series of valuable articles entitled the
“Virginia Navy of the Revolution.” A good account of the
Virginia navy. Somewhat extravagant in tone. Popular rather
than scientific.
Virginia Archives, Richmond. Letter Book of Governor Thomas
Jefferson; Letter Book of Governor Benjamin Harrison. MSS.
Contain bits of naval information.
Virginia Archives, Richmond. Journals of the Virginia Navy
Board. MSS.
A valuable source for both the civil and military history
of the navy.
Virginia Archives, Richmond. Virginia State Navy Papers. 2
vols. MSS.
An important original source. Contains much information
relative to the different vessels of the navy.
Virginia Gazette for 1775-1779. Williamsburg.
Not complete files. Those in the Library of the Virginia
Historical Society may be supplemented by those in the
Virginia State Library. Of some value for the cruises of
the Virginia fleet.
Virginia Historical Register. 6 vols. Richmond, 1848-53.
Contains some important bits of naval information.
THE NAVY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Almon’s Remembrancer for 1780. London.
Valuable for the naval defence of Charleston, 1779-1780.
Clowes, W. L. Royal Navy. 7 vols. Boston and London,
1897-1903.
Gives good accounts of the cruise of the “Randolph” in
1778, and the capture of the “South Carolina” in 1782.
Connecticut Gazette for 1782, New London.
Reports the capture of the Bahamas by the Spaniards and
Commodore Gillon.
Cooper’s Statutes of South Carolina. 10 vols. Columbia,
1836-41.
Valuable for naval legislation.
Deane Papers. Collections of the New York Historical Society.
5 vols. New York, 1886-90.
Serviceable for Gillon’s movements in Europe.
Drayton, W. H. Memoirs of the American Revolution. 2 vols.
Charleston, 1821.
Throws light on the naval history of 1775.
Force, Peter. American Archives. 9 vols. Folio. Washington,
1837-53.
Prints important South Carolina official records, notably
the early journals of the South Carolina Navy Board. The
manuscript journals of the South Carolina Navy-Board are
in the New York State Library at Albany.
Gazette of State of South Carolina for 1776-1779. Charleston.
Files for part of the period at Charleston. Valuable for
the cruises of the naval vessels.
Gibbes, R. W. Documentary History of the American Revolution.
3 vols. New York, 1853-57.
Contains some naval information.
McCrady, Edward, History of South Carolina in the Revolution.
2 vols. New York and London, 1901-02.
Of value for 1775 and for a history of the “South Carolina.”
Moultrie, William. Memoirs of the American Revolution. 2
vols. New York, 1802.
Of little value for naval history.
Poore’s Constitutions. Washington, 1877.
Contains the constitution of South Carolina of 1776.
Pennsylvania Packet for 1782. Philadelphia.
Contains valuable material for the movements of the “South
Carolina” during 1782.
Ramsay, David. Revolution of South Carolina, Trenton, 1785.
Of slight value for naval history.
South Carolina and American General Gazette for 1776-1779.
Charleston.
Files for part of the period at Charleston. Valuable for
the cruises of the naval vessels.
South Carolina Archives, Columbia. Journals of General
Assembly for 1776. MSS.
Of value for the civil history of the navy.
South Carolina Archives, Columbia. Journals of the House of
Representatives for 1779-1780. MSS.
Throws light upon the naval history for 1779-1780.
South Carolina Archives, Columbia. Journals of the House of
Representatives for 1783. MSS.
Valuable for the naval services of Commodore Gillon.
South Carolina Archives, Columbia. Miscellaneous Records A. MSS.
Contains some important naval records.
South Carolina Historical Society Collections. 3 vols.
Charleston, 1857-59.
Reprints a part of the Journals of the South Carolina
Committee of Safety.
South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine. 2 vols.
Charleston, 1900-01.
Prints two important letters of Commodore Gillon.
Wharton, Francis. Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence. 6
vols. Washington, 1889.
Contains a note upon Commodore Gillon.
THE MINOR NAVIES OF THE SOUTHERN STATES
Force, Peter. American Archives. 9 vols. Folio. Washington,
1837-53.
Prints official records. Of considerable value for the navies
of Maryland, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Georgia Historical Society Collections. 5 vols. Savannah,
1840-1902.
Prints a part of the proceedings of the Georgia Council of
Safety. Contains a few naval items of importance.
Jones, C. C., jr. History of Georgia. 2 vols. Boston, 1883.
Contains a few references to the work of the Georgia galleys.
Maryland Archives. 21 vols. Baltimore, 1883-1901.
Contains much information concerning the Maryland navy. This
may be found by consulting the index for the names of the
vessels.
Maryland Statutes. Kilty, 2 vols. Annapolis, 1799-1800.
Kilty is best. Hanson supplements Kilty.
McCall, Hugh. History of Georgia. 2 vols. Savannah, 1811-16.
Volume II gives some information in respect to the Georgia
galleys.
North Carolina Records. 18 vols. Raleigh, 1886-1900.
The most valuable source for the history of the North Carolina
navy.
Ridgely, David. Annals of Annapolis. Baltimore, 1841.
Narrates an important event or two in the history of the
Maryland navy.
Scharf, J. T. History of Maryland. 3 vols. Baltimore, 1879.
Volume II contains naval information of considerable value.
Southern Literary Messenger for 1857. Richmond.
Contains an excellent account of the Battle of the Barges.
THE MINOR NAVIES OF THE NORTHERN STATES
Arnold, Samuel G. History of Rhode Island, 2 vols. New York, 1859.
Volume II contains a few items of naval information.
Carson, H. L. Supreme Court of the United States. Philadelphia,
1902.
Contains references to the admiralty legislation of New York.
Connecticut Gazette for 1779. New London.
Gives a good account of the achievements of Captain Talbot.
Fernow’s New York in the Revolution. Albany, 1887.
Contains the rolls of several New York vessels.
Force, Peter. American Archives. 9 vols. Folio. Washington,
1837-53.
Prints important records for Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and
New York.
New Hampshire Archives. MSS. Concord.
References to the “Hampden.”
New Jersey, Minutes of the Provincial Congress and Council of
Safety, 1775-1776. Trenton, 1879.
Of some value for the prize legislation in New Jersey.
New York, Journals of New York Provincial Convention, etc. 2
vols. Albany, 1842.
Valuable for the history of the New York navy.
Providence Gazette for 1775-1779. Providence.
Valuable for the movements and prizes of Rhode Island vessels.
Pennsylvania Packet for 1779. Philadelphia.
Contains original material for the cruises of Captain Talbot.
Poore’s Constitutions. Washington, 1877.
Contains the constitution of New York for 1777.
Rhode Island, Acts and Resolves for 1775-1783.
Contemporaneous prints. A valuable source for the history of
the Rhode Island navy.
Rhode Island Colonial Records. 10 vols. Providence, 1856-65.
Supplements the information contained in the Acts and Resolves.
Rhode Island Historical Collections. 8 vols. Providence, 1827-92.
Contains letters which are valuable for the naval history of
1775.
Rhode Island Historical Society Publications VIII. Providence,
1900.
Important for the naval history of Rhode Island for 1778.
Rhode Island. Journals of the Council of War. MSS. Providence.
Of some value for the years 1779-1781.
Staples, W. R. Annals of Providence. Providence, 1843.
Contains a brief account of the Rhode Island navy.
Sheffield, W. P. Rhode Island Privateers and Privateersmen.
Newport, 1883.
A fairly good account.
APPENDIX B
A LIST OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WHO SERVED IN THE NAVY
AND MARINE CORPS OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION[665]
NAVY
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
1. Esek Hopkins.
CAPTAINS
1. Joseph Nicholson.
2. John Manly.
3. Hector McNeil.
4. Dudley Saltonstall.
5. Nicholas Biddle.
6. Thomas Thompson.
7. John Barry.
8. Thomas Read.
9. Thomas Grennel.
10. Charles Alexander.
11. Lambert Wickes.
12. Abraham Whipple.
13. John B. Hopkins.
14. John Hodge.
15. William Hallock.
16. Hoysted Hacker.
17. Isaiah Robinson.
18. John Paul Jones.
19. James Josiah.
20. Elisha Hinman.
21. Joseph Olney.
22. James Robinson.
23. John Young.
24. Elisha Warner.
25. John Ayres.
26. Peter Brewster.
27. William Burke.
28. Samuel Chew.
29. Gustavus Conyngham.
30. Benjamin Dunn.
31. John Green.
32. Seth Harding.
33. John Hazard.
34. Henry Johnson.
35. Peter Landais.
36. John Nicholson.
37. Samuel Nicholson.
38. William Pickles.
39. John P. Rathburn.
40. Thomas Simpson.
41. John Skimmer.
42. William Stone.
43. Silas Talbot.
44. Samuel Tucker.
45. Daniel Waters.
LIEUTENANTS
1. Robert Adamson.
2. Joseph Adams.
3. Thomas Albertson.
4. Blaney Allison.
5. John Angus.
6. James Armitage.
7. Rhodes Arnold.
8. Josiah Audibert.
9. John Baldwin.
10. William Barnes.
11. Joshua Barney.
12. Benjamin Barron.
13. William Barron.
14. Benjamin Bates.
15. George Batson.
16. Daniel Bears.
17. John Bellenger.
18. Elijah Bowen.
19. Christopher Bradley.
20. Jacob Brooks.
21. John Brown.
22. Philip Brown.
23. Isaac Buck.
24. Charles Bulkley.
25. Edward Burke.
26. Ezekiel Burroughs.
27. Samuel Cardal.
28. George Champlin.
29. John Channing.
30. Seth Clarke.
31. David Cullam.
32. Richard Dale.
33. James Degge.
34. William Dennis.
35. Peter Deville.
36. Silas Devol.
37. Arthur Dillaway.
38. Joseph Doble.
39. Marie Sevel Dorie.
40. William Dunlap.
41. William Dupar.
42. John Fanning.
43. Joshua Fanning.
44. Wilford Fisher.
45. Patrick Fletcher.
46. Robert French.
47. William Gamble.
48. Nicholas E. Gardner.
49. Joseph Greenway.
50. Stephen Gregory.
51. William Grinnell.
52. James Grinwell.
53. Simon Gross.
54. Elijah Hall.
55. William Ham.
56. Benjamin Handy.
57. James Handy.
58. Robert Harris.
59. Abraham Hawkins.
60. John Hennesey.
61. Stephen Hill.
62. Christopher Hopkins.
63. Esek Hopkins, jr.
64. William Hopkins.
65. George House.
66. Robert Hume.
67. Aquilla Johns.
68. John Kemp.
69. John Kerr.
70. Michael Knies.
71. Benjamin Knight.
72. William Leeds.
73. Edward Leger.
74. John Lewis.
75. Muscoe Livingston.
76. George Lovie.
77. Cutting Lunt.
78. Henry Lunt.
79. John McDougal.
80. John McIvers.
81. Jonathan Maltbie.
82. John Margisson.
83. Robert Martin.
84. Richard Marvin.
85. Luke Mathewman.
86. William Mollison.
87. John Moran.
88. William Moran.
89. William Morrison.
90. Alexander Murray.
91. Isaac Olney.
92. Benjamin Page.
93. David Phipps.
94. James Pine.
95. Jonathan Pitcher.
96. Robert Pomeroy.
97. David Porter.
98. William Potts.
99. Jonathan Pritchard.
100. Benjamin Reed.
101. Peter Richards.
102. John Rodez.
103. James Robertson.
104. John Robinson.
105. Peter Rosseau.
106. Robert Saunders.
107. John Scott.
108. Robert Scott.
109. John Scranton.
110. Nicholas Scull.
111. Benjamin Seabury.
112. James Sellers.
113. Josiah Shackford.
114. Peter Shores.
115. John Sleymaker.
116. Daniel Starr.
117. James Stephens.
118. John Stevens.
119. Adam W. Thaxter.
120. Mathew Tibbs.
121. Daniel Vaughan.
122. Thomas Vaughan.
123. Joseph Vesey.
124. Thomas Weaver.
125. David Welch.
126. Hezekiah Welch.
127. John Wheelwright.
128. Jacob White.
129. Jacob White (?).
130. Richard Wickes.
131. James Wilson.
132. Robert Wilson.
133. Hopley Yeaton.
134. Samuel York.
FOOTNOTES:
[665] This list is compiled from two lists of naval officers
which are now found in the Division of Manuscripts of the Library
of Congress. One of these was prepared by the Naval Department
in 1781, the other by the Auditor’s Office of the Treasury
Department in 1794. A complete roster of the naval officers of
the Revolution does not exist. The list now printed is almost
complete. It may contain a few inaccuracies. The names are
arranged alphabetically, with the exception of those of the first
twenty-four naval captains, which are arranged according to rank.
MARINE CORPS
MAJOR
1. Samuel Nichols.
CAPTAINS
1. Edward Arrowsmith.
2. Seth Baxter.
3. Abraham Boyce.
4. Isaac Craig.
5. Benjamin Dean.
6. James Disney.
7. John Elliott.
8. Robert Elliott.
9. Joseph Hardy.
10. John Hazard.
11. William Holton.
12. William Jones.
13. Dennis Leary.
14. William Mathewman.
15. William Morris.
16. Robert Mullen.
17. William Nicholson.
18. George Jerry Osborn.
19. Richard Palmes.
20. Matthew Parke.
21. Miles Pennington.
22. Andrew Porter.
23. —— Rice.
24. Gilbert Saltonstall.
25. Samuel Shaw.
26. Joseph Shoemaker.
27. —— Spence.
28. John Stewart.
29. John Trevitt.
30. Elihu Trowbridge.
31. John Welch.
LIEUTENANTS
1. William Barney.
2. William Barney (?).
3. Henry Becker.
4. Peter Bedford.
5. David Bill.
6. Gurdon Bill.
7. Abraham Boyce.
8. Peregrine Brown.
9. Benjamin Catlin.
10. Seth Chapin.
11. John Chilton.
12. James Clark.
13. James Cokely.
14. James Connolly.
15. William Cooper.
16. David Cullam.
17. Robert Cummings.
18. Henry Dayton.
19. Robert Davis.
20. Panatier De la Falconier.
21. Lewis De la Valette.
22. John Dimsdell.
23. Stephen Earl.
24. Thomas Elting.
25. Thomas Elwood.
26. Zebadiah Farnham.
27. William Fielding.
28. Thomas Fitzgerald.
29. John Fitzpatrick.
30. Samuel Gamage.
31. William Gilmore.
32. Peter Green.
33. John Guignace.
34. Roger Haddock.
35. James Hamilton.
36. Jonas Hamilton.
37. William Hamilton.
38. John Harris.
39. John Harris (?).
40. Richard Harrison.
41. Samuel Hempsted.
42. Daniel Henderson.
43. Samuel Holt.
44. Benjamin Huddle.
45. William Huddle.
46. Robert Hunter.
47. William Jennison.
48. —— Kelly.
49. Hugh Kirkpatrick.
50. Daniel Longstreet.
51. David Love.
52. Eugene McCarthy.
53. James McClure.
54. Richard McClure.
55. Charles McHarron.
56. Robert McNeal.
57. Peter Manifold.
58. Stephen Meade.
59. Jonathan Mix.
60. Hugh Montgomery.
61. Abel Morgan.
62. William Morris.
63. Alexander Neilson.
64. Avery Parker.
65. Samuel Powars.
66. Thomas Pownal.
67. Samuel Prichard.
68. Thomas Plunkett.
69. William Radford.
70. Franklin Reed.
71. Jerry Reed.
72. Nathaniel Richards.
73. Alpheus Rice.
74. Jabez Smith.
75. Walter Spooner.
76. Edmund Stack.
77. Daniel Starr.
78. J. M. Strobach.
79. Benjamin Thompson.
80. George Trumbull.
81. Thomas Turner.
82. Nathaniel Twing.
83. Abraham Vandyke.
84. Zebulon Varnam.
85. —— Wadsworth.
86. Samuel Wallingsworth.
87. James Warren.
88. James Warren (?).
89. William Waterman.
90. Jacob White.
91. James H. Wilson.
92. Jonathan Woodworth.
APPENDIX C
A LIST OF ARMED VESSELS IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES
DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION[666]
PRINCIPAL FLEET OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
No. of Period of
Rig. Name. guns. Service.
1 ship Alfred 24 1775-1778
2 ship Columbus 20 1775-1778
3 brig Andrew Doria 14 1775-1777
4 brig Cabot 14 1775-1777
5 sloop Providence 14 1775-1779
6 sloop Hornet 10 1775-1777
7 schooner Wasp 8 1775-1777
8 schooner Fly 8 1775-1777
9 brig Lexington 16 1776-1777
10 brig Reprisal 16 1776-1777
11 brig Hampden 14 1776-1777
12 sloop Independence 10 1776-1778
13 sloop Sachem 10 1776-1777
14 sloop Mosquito 4 1776-1777
15 frigate Raleigh 32 1777-1778
16 frigate Hancock 32 1777
17 frigate Warren 32 1777-1779
18 frigate Washington 32 1777-1778
19 frigate Randolph 32 1777-1778
20 frigate Providence 28 1777-1780
21 frigate Trumbull 28 1777-1781
22 frigate Congress 28 1777
23 frigate Virginia 28 1777-1778
24 frigate Effingham 28 1777-1778
25 frigate Boston 24 1777-1780
26 frigate Montgomery 24 1777
27 frigate Delaware 24 1777
28 ship Ranger 18 1777-1780
29 brigantine Resistance 10 1777-1778
30 sloop Surprise — 1777
31 frigate Alliance 32 1778-1785
32 ship General Gates 18 1778-1779
33 brigantine Retaliation — 1778
34 galley Pigot 8 1778
35 frigate Confederacy 32 1779-1781
36 sloop Argo 12 1779
37 brig Diligent 12 1779
38 ship Saratoga 18 1780-1781
39 ship of the line America 74 1782
40 ship Washington 20 1782-1784
41 ship Duc de Lauzun 20 1782-1783
42 frigate Bourbon 36 1783
FLEET FITTED OUT IN FRANCE
1 ship Bon Homme
Richard 42 1779
2 ship Indian 40 1777
3 frigate Deane or Hague 32 1777-1783
4 frigate Queen of France 28 1777-1780
5 ship Pallas 30 1779
6 ship Ariel 20 1780-1781
7 cutter Cerf 18 1779
8 cutter Revenge 14 1777-1779
9 brig Vengeance 12 1779
10 cutter Dolphin 10 1777
11 lugger Surprise 10 1777
POLLOCK’S FLEET
1 ship Morris 24 1778-1779
2 sloop West Florida — 1779-1780
3 schooner —— — 1779
WASHINGTON’S FLEET
1 schooner Hannah — 1775
2 schooner Lynch — 1775-1776
3 schooner Franklin — 1775-1776
4 schooner Lee 4 1775-1776
5 schooner Harrison — 1775-1776
6 schooner Warren — 1775-1776
7 brigantine Washington 10 1775-1776
8 schooner Hancock — 1776
9 sloop Gen’l Schuyler — 1776
10 sloop Gen’l Mifflin — 1776
11 galley Lady Washington — 1776-1777
ARNOLD’S FLEET[667]
1 sloop Enterprise 12 1776
2 schooner Royal Savage 12 1776
3 schooner Revenge 8 1776
4 schooner Liberty 8 1776
5 gondola New Haven 3 1776
6 gondola Providence 3 1776
7 gondola Boston 3 1776
8 gondola Spitfire 3 1776
9 gondola Philadelphia 3 1776
10 gondola Connecticut 3 1776
11 gondola Jersey 3 1776
12 gondola New York 3 1776
13 galley Lee 6 1776
14 galley Trumbull 8 1776
15 galley Congress 8 1776
16 galley Washington 8 1776
17 galley Gates 8 1776
FOOTNOTES:
[666] The term “Period of Service” is used in a somewhat general
sense. The dates are close approximations. Among the vessels used
by the Naval Department as packets, merchantmen, or scout-ships
are the following: “Despatch,” “Georgia Packet,” “Phœnix,”
“Mercury,” “Baltimore,” “Enterprise,” and “Fame.”
[667] Several of Arnold’s vessels were employed on the Lakes in
1775.
INDEX
Abaco, Island of, 58.
Abercrombie, Lieutenant-Colonel, 414.
“Accomac,” the, 406, 411.
Accounts, Naval, settling of, 70, 196, 225, 227-228, 246-247,
303-304, 440.
“Active,” the, 335 and note, 349, 352.
Adams, John, early naval services, 32, 36-41, 46, 48, 51, 82-83, 86,
97, 98 and note, 135;
in France, 161, 254-255, 257, 276, 292;
and Massachusetts naval affairs, 321, 324.
Adams, Samuel, naval services, 83, 86, 89 and note;
administrative views, 186, 211, 215, 225;
and Penobscot expedition, 349.
“Admiral Duff,” the, 345.
“Admiral Keppel,” the, 369.
Admiralty Courts,
of Continental Congress, 48-49, 67-68, 203, 233, 478;
of Massachusetts, 68, 148, 322-323, 327-328;
of Connecticut, 365, 474;
of Pennsylvania, 148, 391-392;
in France, 266-267, 282-283;
of Virginia, 403-405;
of South Carolina, 423-424;
of Maryland, 444, 474;
of North Carolina, 459;
of Georgia, 462;
of Rhode Island, 467-468, 474;
of New York, 476;
of New Hampshire, 476-477;
of New Jersey, 477-478.
“Adventure,” the brig, 397, 406.
“Adventure,” the schooner, 397.
Africa, 173, 176, 279-280.
Agent of Marine, appointment of, 218-226;
office of, 226-228;
legislation under, 282-235;
movement of fleet under, 235-240;
recommendations of, 240-244;
last work of, 244-250, 257, 302, 394.
“Albany,” the, 350.
Alexander, Charles, 123.
“Alfred,” the, 52, 55, 57, 59, 97, 133, 158, 175, 281.
“Alliance,” the, 122, 204, 206, 220, 231, 235, 236-238, 248-250,
295-300, 302.
“Amelia,” the, 442.
“America,” the, 111, 122, 145, 204, 219-220, 235, 247.
“American Congress,” the, 398.
“American Turtle,” the, 364.
Amsterdam, 264, 311, 436-437.
“Andrew Doria,” the, 52, 57, 59.
Annapolis, 442, 446.
“Annapolis,” the, 442.
Antigua, 306-307, 344.
Appeals in prize cases, 49, 68, 327, 365-366, 391, 404-405, 475,
477.
Appointments, in Continental navy, 52-55, 105-107, 108-109, 119,
124-125, 160, 257-260, 309.
“Ariadne,” the, 408.
“Ariel,” the, 300.
“Argo,” the, 469-470.
Arnold, Benedict, 73-78, 414, 415, 446.
“Arnold,” the, 376, 379, 385.
Arnold and Phillips, raid of, 408, 413-415, 446.
Arnold’s fleet, 71-78, 475.
Articles of Confederation, 197, 200-202, 417, 434-435.
“Atalanta,” the, 206.
“Augusta,” the, 385.
“Aurora,” the, 468.
Aylett, William, 405.
Azores, the, 368.
Bagaduce, Maine, 348-351.
Bahamas, the, 58, 328, 438.
“Baille,” the, 236.
Baltimore, 51, 56, 57, 93, 99, 102, 168, 249, 331, 442, 443, 475.
“Baltimore,” the, 442.
Baltimore Committee of Observation, 93, 442.
Barbadoes, the, 176, 431.
Barclay, Thomas, 302-303.
Barney, Joshua, 248-249, 394.
Barnwell, John, 418, 459.
Barron, James, 397, 402, 407, 416.
Barron, Richard, 397, 407.
Barry, John, 109 note, 206, 236-238, 302.
Bartlett, Josiah, 86.
“Batchelor,” the, 169.
Battle of the Barges, 449-451.
Beaufort, S. C., 423, 428.
“Beaufort,” the, 428.
Belfast, 293.
“Bellona,” the, 459.
Bergen, 304.
“Berkenbosch,” the, 273.
Bermudas, the, 156, 167, 171, 173, 180, 206, 236, 328, 342, 457,
465.
“Betsey,” the, 419.
Beverly, Mass., 63.
Bilbao, 256, 331.
Biddle, Nicholas, 54, 57, 120, 123, 430.
Biddle, Owen, 373.
Bingham, William, 266, 305-306.
“Bishop Landaff,” the, 471-472.
Blackburn, John, 454.
“Black Duck,” the, 389.
“Black Prince,” the privateer, 260-261.
“Black Prince,” the ship, 52.
“Black Princess,” the, 260-261.
Blake, Edward, 420, 425.
Bland, Theodoric, 222, 223.
Blewer, Joseph, 382.
“Blonde,” the, 350.
Board of Admiralty, appointment, 181-188;
duties, 188-189;
pay, 189-190;
selection, 190-194;
legislative work, 194-203;
movement of fleet under, 203-208;
discontinuance, 208-209, 219-222, 227-229.
Board of Treasury, Continental, 184, 188, 205, 247, 249, 250.
Board of War, Continental, 184, 187.
Board of War, Massachusetts, 329-332, 335-337, 343, 345, 348, 351.
“Bolton,” the, 59.
“Bon Homme Richard,” the, 163, 258, 295-298.
Bordeaux, 256, 276, 292, 436.
Bordentown, 97, 99, 102, 387.
Boston, 63, 93, 94, 113, 114, 139, 140, 148, 154, 168, 172, 203,
206,
247, 248, 328, 352, 353, 361.
“Boston,” the, 91, 158, 204, 207, 292, 344, 390, 433, 434.
Boston Bay, 156.
Boucher, John Henry, 402, 444.
Boulogne, 262.
Bounties, 46, 128, 146, 198, 403, 410, 411, 432, 443.
“Bourbon,” the, 92, 122, 204, 235, 240.
Bowen, Oliver, 459, 460, 461.
Boys, Captain, 395.
Braddock, Captain, of Georgia navy, 461.
Bradford, John, 69, 94, 95.
Bradford, William, 382, 387.
Brest, 256.
“Bricole,” the, 433, 434.
“Britannia,” the, 357.
British fleet on Lake Champlain, 76.
Brooke, Walter, 402.
Broughton, Nicholson, 33, 61-63, 66.
Brown, John, 227, 231.
Bryan, George, 190.
“Bulloch,” the, 461.
Burdon, George, 293.
Burgoyne, General, 77, 384.
Bushnell, David, 363-364.
Buzzard’s Bay, 339.
“Cabot,” the, 52, 57, 58, 59, 158, 175.
Cadiz, 261.
Cadrigal, General, 438.
Caldwell, Thomas, 378.
Calvert, Captain, 308.
Canada, 72, 151, 173.
“Camden,” the, 475.
“Camilla,” the, 350.
Campbell, Captain, 461.
Campbell, Lord William, 419-420.
Cape Cod, 279.
Cape Fear, 156, 165, 452.
Cape Francois, 207, 237, 305, 331, 460.
Captures, Continental, legislation concerning, 49-50, 126-127,
200-201, 232-234.
See Prizes.
Carleton, Sir Guy, 76, 77.
Carmichael, William, 260.
Castine, Maine, 348.
Caswell, Governor, 458.
“Caswell,” the, 406, 456, 458, 459.
Catherine II. of Russia, 274.
Champlain, Lake, 72-78, 475.
Champlin, George, 165.
“Chance,” the, 169.
Charleston, S. C., 154, 156, 166, 167, 369, 419-423, 425, 427,
432-434.
Chase, Samuel, 51, 82, 86.
Chatham, Conn., 92, 204.
“Chatham,” the, 390.
Chaumont, Ray de, 296.
“Cherokee,” the, 419, 420.
“Chester,” the, 442, 444.
Chew, Samuel, 165.
Chickahominy shipyard, 400, 401, 413, 414.
Clinton, General Henry, 408, 445.
Clouston, John, 332, 343.
Cochran, Robert, 421-422, 427.
Coit, William, 359, 368 note.
Collier, Sir George, 350.
“Columbus,” the, 52, 57, 59, 133, 175.
“Comet,” the galley, 461.
“Comet,” the schooner, 421.
“Commerce,” the, 419.
Commerce, American, 241.
Commercial agents of Congress, 105, 253, 256-257, 305-311.
Commercial Committee of Congress, 160, 162, 257, 307.
Commissary-General of Issues, 204.
Commissary-General of Prisoners, 96, 116, 209, 222.
Commissary-General of Purchases, 116.
Commissioners at Paris, 105, 116, 254;
work of, 255-294.
Commissions for Continental Navy, 50, 109, 188, 197, 199-200, 258;
for privateers, 127, 200, 260-261, 321;
for Massachusetts navy, 201;
for Pennsylvania navy, 374.
Committee of Foreign Affairs, 160, 162, 255, 277-280.
Committee of Secret Correspondence, 162, 255, 258, 260, 276, 283,
305.
“Confederacy,” the, 112, 122, 204, 207-208, 306, 390.
“Confederate,” the, 208.
“Congress,” the frigate, 92.
“Congress,” the galley, 461.
Connecticut Council, 354, 355, 366.
Connecticut Council of Safety, 75, 95, 354-363, 369, 371.
Connecticut Gazette, 359, 362.
Connecticut General Assembly, 354, 355, 358, 360, 361, 363-367,
371-372.
Connecticut, Governor of, 75, 92, 95, 354-364, 369, 371.
Connecticut House of Representatives, 354, 366.
Connecticut Journal, 362.
Connecticut Navy, 315;
beginning of, 355-360;
administration of, 360-363;
regulations of, 361, 366-367;
vessels, 355-360, 367-370;
end of, 369-370.
Connecticut, warfare of armed boats, 370-372.
“Conqueror,” the, 442, 444.
Consular bureau, 139-140.
Continental agents, 95, 103, 105, 257, 305, 307.
Continental Congress, movement for a navy in, 34-38, 81-84;
legislation respecting navy, 37-38, 41-51, 84-85, 105-107, 109,
119-133, 145-146, 154, 196-203, 228-235, 245-250, 259,
261-263;
legislation respecting Naval Department, 37-38, 86-88, 93-94,
96-98,
101-103, 109, 113, 187-193, 195-196, 208-209, 216-224,
301-304;
prepares a fleet on Lakes, 71-73;
and prize courts, 48-50, 67-69, 203, 327, 365, 391, 404, 467,
477-478;
action respecting Esek Hopkins, 133-138;
action respecting consuls, 140;
ignorance of navy, 182-183;
establishes administrative boards, 184, 212;
factions of, 186, 210-216;
refuses to increase navy, 240-244;
ends navy, 245;
relations with Oliver Pollock, 307-311; 315, 322, 333, 357, 385,
392, 402, 405, 409, 412, 417, 418, 421, 437, 438, 443, 447,
460, 465, 469, 472, 473, 475.
Continental Navy, movements for a, 32-42, 80-85;
executive organs of, 38-41, 60, 86-90, 93-103, 187-196, 216-218,
223-228, 252-257, 302-307;
rules of, 43-48;
legislation respecting, 42-51, 85-86, 121-133, 196-201, 228-230,
232-234;
vessels of, 51-52, 90-93, 110-112, 114, 121-123, 156-158, 203-205,
219-220, 235, 247-249, 261-266, 281, 306, 315, 344, 349, 388,
394, 433, 434, 465, 469-470;
officers of, 51-55, 105-110, 117, 123-126, 128-129, 133-139,
158-160, 165, 258-260;
expeditions of, 55-60, 168-169, 171-173, 205-208, 236-239,
283-284,
286-300, 302, 308-311;
uniform of, 117-118;
conditions of, 141-160;
general movements of, 161-180, 276-280;
recommendations for increase of, 239-243;
end of, 244-251;
breaches of neutrality by, 273-274, 284-292, 375, 427, 444, 447.
Contraband, 200, 232.
“Convention,” the, 377, 385, 388, 389.
Conyngham, Gustavus, 173, 179, 258, 260, 268, 273, 287, 290.
Cook, Captain James, 258, 275 note.
Cook, George, 444, 449.
Cooke, Nicholas, 463, 465.
“Cormorant,” the, 244, 415-416.
Cornwallis, surrender of, 239, 240.
Coromandel Coast, 170, 279.
Coruña, 256, 438.
Cottineau, Captain, 297.
Coulthard, Captain, 206.
“Countess of Scarborough,” the, 164, 296-297.
Courts-martial and courts of inquiry, in Continental navy, 44-45,
109, 131-139, 198-199, 228-232, 298-299, 300;
in Connecticut navy, 366;
in Pennsylvania navy, 375, 386-387.
Court of appeals for trial of prize cases, 203.
Crane, Stephen, 84.
“Crane,” the, 360, 369.
Crawford, John, 231.
Cregier, Thomas, 472.
Cropper, John, 450.
Cross, Stephen, 336.
Cushing, Nathan, 323.
Cushing, Thomas, 328.
Dale, Richard, 258.
Dalton, John, 398.
Danish government, 304.
Dartmouth, Mass., 325, 339.
Davidson, Samuel, 378-379.
Davis, Caleb, 337, 338.
Davis, James, 453-454.
Dawson, George, 238.
Deane, Silas, 37, 38, 51-52, 54, 82, 86, 148, 154;
in France, 254, 258-260, 266, 276-278, 282, 292.
“Deane,” the, 171, 203, 220, 231, 232, 235, 236, 262, 263, 306, 344,
352, 390.
“Defence,” the barge, 448.
“Defence,” the schooner, 420, 421.
“Defence,” the ship, of the Connecticut navy, 359, 368, 369, 370.
“Defence,” the ship, of the Maryland navy, 441, 442, 449.
“Defence,” the sloop, 339.
Delaware, 315.
“Delaware,” the frigate, 93.
“Delaware,” the schooner, 377, 385.
Deshon, John, 98, 99, 113, 196, 355, 357.
D’Estaing, Count, 116, 139, 167.
Devil’s Island, 449.
Dewey, Admiral, 179.
“Diamond,” the, 468.
“Dickinson,” the, 386, 387.
“Diligence,” the, 406, 411.
“Diligent,” the brig, 349.
“Diligent,” the schooner, 320.
“Dolphin,” the cutter, 262, 281, 287, 289.
“Dolphin,” the schooner, 442, 444.
Douglass, William, 72.
Dover, England, 262.
“Dragon,” the, 406, 411.
“Drake,” the, 164, 293.
Drayton, William Henry, 421.
Duane, James, 223.
“Duc de Lauzun,” the, 235, 237, 248, 303.
Dunkirk, 256, 260, 287, 290, 437.
Dunmore, Lord, 56, 396, 453.
“Duras,” the, 295.
Dutch government, 273.
Dyer, Eliphalet, 82.
“Eagle,” the British ship, 364.
“Eagle,” the, of the South Carolina navy, 430.
Eastern Coast, the, 320, 338, 339, 343, 344, 353.
East Haddam, Conn., 360.
Edenton, N. C., 93, 452, 455, 458.
“Effingham,” the frigate, 92, 388.
“Effingham,” the galley, 386.
Ellery, William, 90, 182, 191-194, 196, 208.
Elliot, Samuel, 361, 362 and note.
Ellis, Richard, 458-459.
Ellsworth, Oliver, 222, 355.
“Enterprise,” the ship, 76.
“Enterprise,” the sloop, 72.
Executive Departments of Congress, 107.
Executive system, defects of, 210-214.
Factions, in Congress, 186, 210-216.
“Fair American,” the, 430.
“Falcon,” the, 339.
Falconer, Nathaniel, 101.
“Fame,” the, 306-307.
“Fearnaught,” the, 448.
Ferrol, 291.
Fisk, John, 328, 332, 343.
Flags, 55, 120, 275-276, 327, 377.
Florida, 167, 173, 175, 461.
Floyd, William, 191.
“Fly,” the, of Continental navy, 56, 57, 158.
“Fly,” the, of Virginia navy, 416.
“Flying Fish,” the, 451.
Forbes, James, 191, 192.
Ford, Samuel, 386.
Foreign Office of Congress, 160, 255.
Fort Mercer, 385.
Fort Mifflin, 385.
Forton prison, 267, 270.
“Fowey,” the, 396.
“Fox,” the, 163.
Franklin, Benjamin, 83, 378;
in France, 254-256, 261, 262, 265-274, 282-284, 295, 296, 298-303.
“Franklin,” the galley, 54, 390.
“Franklin,” the schooner, 63, 64.
“Freedom,” the, 325, 332, 343, 352.
French fleet, 139, 166-167, 205, 207, 242, 247-248, 263, 276, 294,
344, 371, 389, 413.
French government, 263, 265, 273, 282-289, 294, 295, 298.
Gadsden, Christopher, 38, 39, 82, 83, 86.
“Gallatea,” the, 350.
Galvez, governor of Louisiana, 307-311.
Gates, General Horatio, 74, 470.
“General Gates,” the, 122, 165, 173, 306.
“General Greene,” the, 390-391.
“General Mifflin,” the, 70.
“General Monk,” the, 393, 394.
“General Moultrie,” the, 430, 431, 433, 434.
“General Putnam,” the, 70, 472, 473, 474.
“General Schuyler,” the, 70, 472, 473, 474.
Genoa, State of, 260.
Georgetown, S. C., 422, 426, 434.
Georgia Committee of Safety, 460.
Georgia Navy, 315, 459-462.
Georgia Provincial Congress, 459, 460.
Gerard, French minister to United States, 119, 140, 161, 166.
Germaine, Lord George, 457.
Gerry, Elbridge, 321, 323.
Ghent, 436.
Gibraltar, 268.
Gillon, Alexander, 435-440.
Glasgow, 276, 278.
“Glasgow,” the, 59, 133, 186.
“Gloucester,” the, 265.
Glover, John, 62, 63.
Goldsborough, Robert, 447.
“Good Intent,” the, 274.
Gosport navy-yard, 93, 400, 408.
Goodrich, a Tory privateersman, 165.
Grannis, John, 136.
Grason, Thomas, 443.
Great Bridge, Va., 396.
Green, John, 258, 263.
“Greyhound,” the, 350.
Grimes, John, 466.
Griswold, William, 356.
Groton, Conn., 371.
Guadaloupe, 331.
Guerard, Benjamin, 434.
“Guilford,” the, 367, 370.
Gwinnett, Button, 461.
Habersham, Joseph, 459.
“Hague,” the, 236, 248.
Halifax, 156, 167, 465.
Hall, Captain, 430.
Hall, Giles, 355, 357.
Hallet, Allen, 345.
Hamilton, Alexander, 211, 213, 217-218.
“Hampden,” the brig, 175.
“Hampden,” the ship, 349, 476.
Hampstead, Joshua, 452, 453.
Hampton, Va., 396, 402, 412.
Hancock, John, 86, 89, 353, 472.
“Hancock,” the frigate, 91, 158, 239, 344.
“Hancock,” the galley, 390.
“Hancock,” the schooner, 63.
Handy, Joseph, 450.
Handy, Levin, 450.
“Hannah,” the, a merchantman, 475.
“Hannah,” the, of Washington’s fleet, 33, 61, 62.
Haraden, Jonathan, 343.
Harding, Seth, 207, 359.
Hardy, Captain, 461.
Harris, Captain, 407.
Harrison, Benjamin, 413.
Harrison, William Hanson, 447.
“Harrison,” the, of Virginia navy, 416.
“Harrison,” the, of Washington’s fleet, 63, 65.
Harrison and Van Bibber, 443.
Hartford, Conn., 355.
Hartford Courant, 362.
Hartley, David, 269.
Hatcher, Captain, 461.
Havana, 237, 305, 309, 311, 435, 438.
“Hawk,” the, 59.
Hayden, Uriah, 359.
“Hazard,” the, 335, 342, 349, 352.
Hazelwood, John, 376, 380, 384, 385, 386, 388.
Heath, General, 116.
Henry, Patrick, 211.
“Henry,” the, 411.
Hewes, Joseph, 38, 41, 86, 90, 454.
“Hibernia,” the, 168, 169.
Hill, Whitmill, 193.
“Hinchinbrooke,” the, 461.
Hispaniola, 175, 305, 457, 460.
Hodge, William, 262, 291.
Holker, John, 140, 205.
“Holker,” the, 391.
Hollingsworth, Jesse, 442.
“Honor,” the, 368.
Hopkins, Daniel, 208.
Hopkins, Esek, 53-60, 91, 105, 116, 125, 133-139, 185, 419.
Hopkins, J. B., 53, 54, 168.
Hopkins, Stephen, 38, 39-40, 53, 81, 82, 86, 90, 91, 92, 119.
Hopkinson, Francis, 96-97.
“Hornet,” the brig, 428.
“Hornet,” the galley, 461.
“Hornet,” the sloop, 55, 56, 57.
Hosmer, Titus, 203.
Houston, John, 86.
Howe, General William, 77, 384.
Howe, Lord Richard, 120.
Howe, Tyringham, 59.
“Hudson,” the, 475.
Huntington, Benjamin, 356, 359.
Huntington, Daniel, 193.
“Hussar,” the, 353.
“Hyder Ally,” the, 394, 395.
Impressment of seamen, 146.
“Independence,” the brigantine, 325, 352.
“Independence,” the galley, 442.
“Independence,” the sloop, 281.
“Indian,” the, 264, 304, 436.
“Industry,” the, 389.
Ingraham, Edward, 453.
Ioor, Joseph, 431.
Ipswich, Mass., 322, 328.
“Iris,” the, 238.
Isle of Pines, 431.
“Jackall,” the, 236.
Jamaica, 156, 175, 345.
“Jane,” the, 407.
“Jason,” the, 169, 171.
Jay, John, 185, 186, 211, 219, 261.
Jefferson, Thomas, 303, 405, 409, 413.
“Jefferson,” the, 407, 411, 414.
“Jemmy and Sallie,” the, 430.
Jenifer, Daniel of St. Thomas, 193, 221.
Jersey, island of, 440.
“John,” the, 169.
“John,” the, 430.
“Johnson,” the, 442.
Jones, John Paul, 54, 55, 106, 125, 164, 173-176, 179, 183, 207;
in Europe, 258, 270-271, 273, 292-300, 303, 304, 449.
Josiah, James, 120, 123.
Joyner, John, 418, 435, 439, 459.
“Judith,” the, 429.
“Katy,” the, 55, 464, 465.
Kidd, Captain, commander of a British vessel, 450.
Kingston, Mass., 325.
“King Tammany,” the, 452.
Knox, Henry, 53.
“Lady Washington,” the, 71.
Lafayette, 161, 295, 446.
Lake Champlain, battle of, 77.
Landais, Peter, 199, 258, 259, 294-300.
Langdon, John, 37, 38, 91, 95, 106.
Langdon, Timothy, 323.
Laurens, Henry, 89, 311.
Laurens, John, 437.
“L’Aventure,” 433.
Lawrence, John, 387.
Lebanon, Conn., 355.
Ledyard, William, 371.
Lee, Arthur, 186, 211, 254, 280, 282, 300.
Lee, R. H., 38, 83, 86, 89, 93, 186, 211, 215, 256.
Lee, William, 186, 211, 256.
“Lee,” the galley, 461.
“Lee,” the schooner, 63, 65.
Leghorn, 277.
Lemprière, Clement, 419.
Lewis, Francis, 86, 90, 191-194, 196, 208, 475.
“Lexington,” the, 281, 287, 289, 291.
“Liberty,” the armed boat, 397, 415, 416, 417.
“Liberty,” the brig, 397, 407.
Lilly, Thomas, 397.
Little, George, 353.
Liverpool, 206, 278.
“Liverpool,” the, 384.
Livingston, Musco, 119.
Livingston, William, 119, 477-478.
Logie, Commander, 236.
Long Island, 70, 368, 370, 474.
L’Orient, 237, 256, 286, 299, 300. 302.
Louis XVI., 202, 294, 436.
Lovell, Solomon, 350.
“Loyalist,” the, 415, 416.
Loyalists, 338, 348, 370, 448.
Luxembourg, Chevalier, 436, 439-440.
Luzerne, French minister to United States, 248.
“Lydia,” the, 389.
“Lynch,” the, 63, 64.
Lyon, Samuel, 386.
McClehany, William, 231.
McDougall, Alexander, 213, 217-218, 224.
McKean, Thomas, 222.
Macpherson, John, 119.
McQueen, John, 435.
Machias, Maine, 320, 339.
“Machias Liberty,” the, 320.
Madeira, 237.
Madison, James, 192.
“Magnifique,” the, 247.
Mahan, A. T., 78, 143.
Manchac, 309.
Manly, John, 64, 65, 123, 163, 236.
Marblehead, Mass., 62, 63, 149.
“Margaretta,” the, 339.
“Maria,” the, 169.
Marine Committee, appointment of, 80-87;
offices of, 87;
chairmen, 88-90;
agents of, 90-103, 105-115;
work of, 105-140;
conditions of the naval service under, 141-160;
general movements of its fleet, 161-180;
defects of, 181-186;
superseded, 187; 69, 70, 247, 279, 349.
Marines, Continental, 43 and note, 51, 58, 117-118, 123, 129, 131,
136, 158-159, 197, 207, 229-230;
of Massachusetts, 326;
of Connecticut, 357, 358;
of Pennsylvania, 376, 377, 392;
of Virginia, 397, 398, 410, 411;
of South Carolina, 420, 422, 427, 430, 440;
of Maryland, 441, 445, 447;
of North Carolina, 452.
“Mars,” the, 201, 273, 338, 343, 344.
Martha’s Vineyard, 339.
Martin, Joshua, 457.
Martinique, 204, 266, 305, 331, 353, 407, 443, 457.
Maryland commissioners for defense of Chesapeake bay, 447.
Maryland Committee of Safety, 441, 442.
Maryland, Governor of, 443.
Maryland Governor and Council, 441, 445, 446, 447, 448.
Maryland Legislature, 445, 447, 448, 451.
Maryland Navy, 122, 315, 402, 415, 441-451.
Maryland Provincial Convention, 441, 442, 443, 444.
Mason, George, 398.
“Massachusetts,” the, 325, 332, 343.
Massachusetts Agent of the Commonwealth, 337, 338.
Massachusetts admiralty courts, 68, 69, 322-323, 327.
Massachusetts Board of War, 329-332, 335, 336, 337, 343, 345, 348,
351.
Massachusetts Commissary-General, 338, 353.
Massachusetts Committee of Foreign Affairs, 343.
Massachusetts Committee of Safety, 319.
Massachusetts Constitution, 337.
Massachusetts Council, 37, 319, 320, 322, 323, 324, 341, 347, 351,
422.
Massachusetts General Court, 319, 321, 323-326, 329, 332-336, 338,
339, 341.
Massachusetts, Governor of, 337, 338, 353.
Massachusetts House of Representatives, 319, 321, 324, 347, 351.
Massachusetts Navy, 151, 201, 275, 315-353, 470;
beginnings of, 318-328;
documents respecting, 328-329, 332-333, 334-337, 345-347;
administration of, 329-332, 337-338;
regulations respecting, 325-327, 333-335;
vessels of, 325, 331, 335-339, 341-344, 352-353;
expeditions of, 332-333, 341-353;
end of, 353.
Massachusetts Provincial Congress, 318, 319.
Massachusetts trading vessels, 330-331.
Matthews and Collier, raid of, 408.
Mauritius, 179, 279.
Maxwell, James, 401, 409, 413.
“Medea,” the, 352.
“Mercury,” the, 311.
“Merlin,” the, 385.
Middletown, Conn., 355, 359.
Mifflin, Samuel, 380.
Mifflin, Thomas, 192.
“Mifflin,” the, 367.
“Milford,” the cartel-ship, 270.
“Milford,” the frigate, 344.
Milligan, Captain, 461.
Mill prison, 267, 268, 270.
“Minerva,” the merchantman, 475.
“Minerva,” the, of the Connecticut navy, 356, 357, 358.
Mississippi, the, 175, 307-311, 430.
Mobile, expedition against, 166, 311.
“Molly,” the, 122.
“Montague,” the, 120, 165.
Montgomery, General, 458.
Montgomery, James, 390.
“Montgomery,” the frigate, 92.
“Montgomery,” the ship, 71, 472-475.
“Montgomery,” the sloop, 376, 379, 380, 385, 386.
Moore, Lieutenant, 339.
Moravian mission, 274.
Morgan, Captain, 430.
Morris, Gouverneur, 211, 214.
Morris, Robert, 86, 90, 173-176, 182 and note, 211;
agent of marine, 218-251, 256, 257, 302, 394;
and the Pennsylvania navy, 376, 378, 394.
Morris, Thomas, 256.
“Morris,” the, 308-309.
“Mosquito,” the, 407.
Moylan, Stephen, 62, 63.
Mud Island, 384.
“Nancy,” the, 65, 236.
Nantes, 256, 262, 266, 284, 286, 331, 369.
Nantucket, 279, 328, 342, 465.
Nassau, New Providence, 58, 173, 419.
“Nautilus,” the, 350.
Naval administration in the states, in general, 315-318.
Naval Agents, of Washington, 62-63, 69-70;
of Congress, 90-96, 103, 105-107, 110, 116, 117, 150, 189, 195,
196, 221, 227, 247, 256-257, 263-264, 266, 303-311;
of Massachusetts, 327, 329;
of Connecticut, 361-363;
of Virginia, 401;
of South Carolina, 426;
of Maryland, 442-443;
of North Carolina, 458-459.
Naval Committee, appointment of, 35-39;
quarters of, 39;
description of, 39-40;
active life of, 40-41;
legislative work, 42-51;
prepares a fleet, 51-56;
appoints officers, 52-55;
orders of, 56;
summary of work, 60;
its successor, 87;
settling of its accounts, 246-247.
Naval Office at Paris, origin of, 252-253;
duties and work, 253-254, 257-304;
personnel of, 254-255;
headquarters of, 255;
agents of, 256-257;
movements of the fleet under, 286-300.
Naval operations, 161-180.
Naval stations, Continental, 154-155;
British, 155-156.
Navy Board at Boston, origin of, 97-103;
duties of, 105-116, 164-165;
abolition of, 221, 223, 227;
145, 168, 171, 176, 178, 182, 189, 191, 195, 196, 197, 247, 349,
469.
Navy Board at Philadelphia, origin of, 96-97, 99-103;
duties of, 105-116;
abolition of, 221, 223, 227;
145, 189, 195, 196, 197, 247.
Navy of the American Revolution. See Continental Navy,
Massachusetts Navy, Connecticut Navy, etc.
Nesbit, J. M., 95.
Neutral rights, 200, 253, 266, 271-274, 281-292.
New Bedford, Mass., 339.
Newbern, N. C., 93, 452, 453, 455, 457, 459.
Newburyport, Mass., 62, 91, 320, 328, 336.
Newfoundland, 164, 167, 169;
Grand Banks of, 166, 170, 236;
fisheries of, 180, 276, 291-292.
New Hampshire Navy, 315, 349, 476-477.
New Haven, Conn., 73, 355, 360, 362.
New Jersey, 315, 477-478.
New Jersey Provincial Congress, 477.
New London, Conn., 92, 93, 95, 116, 165, 196, 236, 355, 357, 359,
362, 363, 371.
New Orleans, 160, 307-309.
New Providence Expedition, 55-60, 133.
New York, city of, 52, 69, 70, 75, 93, 154, 155, 206, 207, 239, 247,
364, 368, 471, 473.
Newport, R. I., 99, 194, 371.
New York Committee of Safety, 70, 472, 474, 475.
New York Convention, 96.
New York, Governor of, 476.
New York Marine Committee, 471, 472.
New York Navy, 70-71, 315, 471-476.
New York Provincial Congress, 71, 72, 471, 472.
New York Secret Committee, 475.
Nichols, Samuel, 58, 123.
Nicholson, James, 123, 124, 125 note, 206, 238-239, 441, 444, 446,
449.
Nicholson, Samuel, 236, 258, 262, 263.
Niles, Robert, 357, 370.
Niles, Samuel, 356, 357.
Nixon, John, 52, 95, 96, 97, 376, 378.
“Noble,” the, 407.
“North,” the, 350.
North Carolina Council of Safety, 451, 452.
North Carolina Naval Commissioners, 451-454.
North Carolina Navy, 315, 451-459.
North Carolina Provincial Congress, 452, 456.
North Yarmouth, Maine, 322.
Norwich, Conn., 92, 355, 356, 359, 360, 372.
“Notre Dame,” the, 428-431, 433, 434, 435.
O’Brian, Jeremiah, 320.
Ocracoke Inlet, 155, 400, 406, 452, 454-459.
Officers, in Continental navy, 45-46, 50, 109, 123;
in Massachusetts navy, 333;
in Connecticut navy, 357;
in Pennsylvania navy, 374;
in Virginia navy, 397, 401;
in North Carolina navy, 452;
in Rhode Island navy, 464.
“Oliver Cromwell,” the, of the Connecticut navy, 359, 368-370.
“Oliver Cromwell,” the, of the Virginia navy, 415.
Olney, Joseph, 168.
Olney, Richard, 471.
“Orpheus,” the, 208.
Osbornes, Va., engagement at, 414.
Ossabaw Island, 461.
“Otter,” the, 350, 449.
“Oxford,” the, 265.
Paca, William, 203, 447.
Paine, R. T., 82.
Palfrey, William, 302.
“Pallas,” the, 296.
Palmer, Joseph, 324.
Parsons, Alston and Company, 305.
“Patriot,” the armed boat, 397.
“Patriot,” the schooner, 416.
Pay, in Continental navy, 46, 50-51, 128, 145-146, 198;
in Massachusetts navy, 325-326, 333;
in Connecticut navy, 357, 361, 366-367;
in Pennsylvania navy, 380-381;
in Virginia navy, 397, 403, 411, 416;
in South Carolina navy, 422, 432;
in Maryland navy, 441, 443, 445;
in North Carolina navy, 452.
“Peggy,” the, 423.
Pendleton, Captain, 459.
Pennell, Joseph, 227, 246, 247, 250.
Pennsylvania commissioners for defense of the Delaware, 393-395.
Pennsylvania Committee of Safety, 373-381, 391.
Pennsylvania Council of Safety, 378-381.
Pennsylvania Convention, 378.
Pennsylvania General Assembly, 389, 391-394.
Pennsylvania Navy, 123, 315, 373-395;
beginnings of, 373-380;
rules and regulations, 375;
commodores, 378-379;
pay, 380-381;
navy board, 381-383;
in 1777 and 1778, 383-389;
in 1779, 390-391;
prize courts, 391-392;
in 1782, 393-395.
Pennsylvania Navy Board, 377, 381-383, 385, 387-389.
Pennsylvania Provincial Conference of Committees, 379.
Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council, 378, 382, 383, 387-392, 394,
395.
“Pennsylvania Farmer,” the, 452-454.
Penobscot Expedition, 337, 347-352, 476.
Pensacola, 175, 308, 311.
Pensions, 46, 129-131, 366, 381, 392, 410, 447.
Philadelphia, 39, 73, 92, 93, 94, 99, 102, 115, 140, 154, 166, 171,
196, 235, 238, 247, 311, 360, 373, 383, 384, 385, 389, 393,
413, 437-440, 465.
“Phœnix,” the, 408.
Pickering, Timothy, 323.
Pickles, William, 309-311.
Piercy, Thomas, 297.
“Pigot,” the, 469, 470.
Pinckney, Colonel, 423.
“Plater,” the, 442.
Plymouth, Mass., 63, 64, 98, 322.
“Polacre,” the, 433.
Pollock, Oliver, 160, 307-310.
“Polly,” the, 430, 431.
Pontchartrain, Lake, 309, 310.
Porto Rico, 237.
Portsmouth, N. H., 64, 91, 93, 106, 111, 116, 122, 169, 196, 204,
476.
Portsmouth, Va., 400.
Portuguese government, 273.
Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 92, 96, 166.
Pray, Captain, 460.
President of the Continental Congress, 89, 118, 188, 257, 301.
Prince Edward Island, 66.
“Prince Frederick,” the, 169.
“Prince of Wales,” the, 430.
Prisons, naval, 150-151, 267.
Prisoners, naval, 151, 188, 209, 222, 227, 245, 261, 267-272, 281,
341.
Privateers and Privateering, Continental, 49-50, 112, 119, 127-128,
136, 146-148, 201, 306, 308;
in Europe, 260-261, 281;
English, 151, 164, 165, 345-347, 411, 429, 445, 446, 449-451;
Massachusetts, 148-149, 320-323, 327, 339-341, 344-347, 349;
Connecticut, 148, 364-365;
Pennsylvania, 148, 382, 390, 392-393;
Virginia, 148, 405;
South Carolina, 427, 428, 429;
Maryland, 148, 443, 444;
North Carolina, 459;
Rhode Island, 146, 148, 467-468;
New York, 475;
New Hampshire, 476.
Prize Agents, Continental, 93-95, 103, 110, 195-196, 226-227, 247,
303-304;
of Massachusetts navy, 327;
of Connecticut navy, 363;
of New York navy, 474.
Prizes of Continental navy, 59, 163-164, 165, 168-169, 172-173,
177-178, 206, 236, 237, 267, 273, 281-288, 293, 296-297, 308,
311;
of Washington’s fleet, 62, 64-71;
of Massachusetts navy, 332-333, 335, 343-347, 353;
of Connecticut navy, 357, 361, 368-369;
of Pennsylvania navy, 385, 391, 394;
of Virginia navy, 407;
of South Carolina navy, 418-419, 429-430, 431, 438-439;
of Maryland navy, 449;
of Georgia navy, 461;
of Rhode Island navy, 464;
of New York navy, 474.
Prizes, sharing of, in Continental navy, 43, 46, 49-50, 51, 127,
129-130, 232-234;
in Washington’s fleet, 62;
in Massachusetts navy, 326, 333;
in Connecticut navy, 361, 366;
in Pennsylvania navy, 381;
in South Carolina navy, 427-428, 436, 439-440;
in Maryland navy, 443, 448;
in Rhode Island navy, 468;
in New York navy, 473.
Pritchard, Paul, 427.
Promotions in the Continental navy, 123-125.
“Prosper,” the, 421.
“Protector,” the barge, 450.
“Protector,” the ship, of the Massachusetts navy, 201, 336, 344,
345, 353.
“Protector,” the ship, of the Virginia navy, 406.
Providence, R. I., 91, 93, 95, 98, 113, 135, 136, 148, 360, 468.
“Providence,” the frigate, 91, 172, 204, 207, 292, 433, 468.
“Providence,” the sloop, 55, 57, 59, 173, 175, 349, 465.
Prussian government, 177.
“Putnam,” the, 377, 385.
“Queen of France,” the, 169, 171, 172, 204, 207, 263, 433.
Quincy, Joseph, 32.
“Raisonnable,” the, 350.
“Raleigh,” the brig, 408.
“Raleigh,” the frigate, 91, 281.
Randall, Thomas, 472.
Randolph, Peyton, 82, 119.
“Randolph,” the, 92, 430.
“Ranger,” the galley, 387.
“Ranger,” the ship, 106, 168, 169, 171, 172, 292-293, 433, 434.
Rank, naval, 123-126, 197, 257-258, 422.
Rathburn, John P., 172.
Rations in Continental navy, 128-129;
in Massachusetts navy, 333;
in Maryland navy, 447.
“Rattlesnake,” the, 426.
Read, George, 86.
Read, James, 101, 196, 226, 250.
Read, Thomas, 123, 374, 376, 378.
“Rebecca,” the, a merchantman, 308.
“Rebecca,” the sloop, 461.
Recaptures, 50, 232, 322-323.
Red Bank, 373, 384.
Reed, Joseph, 391.
“Renown,” the, 414.
“Reprisal,” the, a privateer, 308.
“Reprisal,” the sloop, 262, 269, 281, 283, 284, 286, 287, 291.
“Republic,” the, 325, 331.
“Resistance,” the, 165.
“Resolution,” the, 442.
“Revenge,” the brig, 345.
“Revenge,” the cutter, 262, 281, 290, 291.
Revere, Paul, 350.
Rhode Island Committee of Safety, 463, 464, 466, 467.
Rhode Island Council of War, 138-139, 467, 468, 469.
Rhode Island General Assembly, 80, 463-470.
Rhode Island, Governor of, 465-467.
Rhode Island Inferior Court of Common Pleas, 138.
Rhode Island instructions to the Continental Congress, 33, 80-85.
Rhode Island Navy, 80, 315, 463-471.
“Richmond,” the, 416.
Richmond, Va., 401, 414, 447.
“Rising Empire,” the, 325, 338.
Roach, John, 106, 107.
Robertson, William, 435.
Rodgers, William, 472, 473.
“Roebuck,” the, 208, 352, 384.
Rogers, Josias, 394.
“Rose,” the, 80, 463, 464.
Ross, Elizabeth, 377.
Ross, John, 256.
“Rover,” the, 470, 471.
“Royal Charlotte,” the, 430.
Rules and Regulations, of Continental navy, 43-48, 109, 110,
202-203,
231;
of British navy, 47-48, 202;
of Massachusetts navy, 333-335;
of Connecticut navy, 361, 366;
of Pennsylvania navy, 374, 375, 391;
of South Carolina navy, 422;
of Maryland navy, 447;
of New York navy, 472.
Rush, Benjamin, 374.
Russian navy, 304.
Rutledge, Edward, 36.
Rutledge, John, 82, 119, 424, 429, 430.
St. Augustine, Fla., 156, 419, 429, 430.
St. Christopher, island of, 175.
St. Eustatius, island of, 237, 305, 306, 331, 457.
St. Mary’s Isle, 293.
St. Thomas, island of, 335.
Salem, Mass., 62, 149, 320, 328.
Salisbury, Mass., 91, 325.
“Sally,” the, 389.
Salter, Titus, 476.
Saltonstall, Dudley, 54, 57, 133, 350, 352.
Saltonstall, Gilbert, 206.
Saltonstall, Gurdon, 154.
Salvage, 50, 201, 232, 323.
Samson, Simeon, 343.
Sandy Hook, 370, 390, 474.
“Saratoga,” the, 122, 204, 208.
Sartine, French minister of marine, 274, 278, 296.
Savage, P. H., 330.
Savannah, 156, 167, 418, 459.
Saybrook, Conn., 74, 359.
Schuyler, General, 71-74, 116, 213.
“Schuyler,” the, 367.
Schweighauser, a commercial agent in France, 256.
Seal of the Naval Department, 199, 209, 222.
Seamen in Continental navy, difficulties of enlistment, 144-147;
numbers, 158-159.
Searle, James, 101.
Sears, Isaac, 358.
Secretary of Congress, 140, 209, 222.
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, 214, 255.
Secretary of Marine, 208-209, 214-218, 221, 224, 229.
Secretary of War, 216.
Secret Committee of Congress, 162.
Selkirk, Earl of, 293.
Selman, John, 63, 66.
“Serapis,” the, 163, 164, 296, 297.
Seymour, Stephen, 426.
Seymour, Thomas, 380.
“Shark,” the, 360, 369.
Shaw, Jr., Nathaniel, 95, 355, 362-363.
Sheridan, Patrick, 231.
Sherman, Roger, 221, 355.
“Sibylle,” the, 237.
Simpson, Thomas, 168, 172.
Skimmer, John, 120, 165.
Smith, James, 72, 471, 472.
Smith, Meriwether, 220, 221.
Smith, William, 101.
“Somerset,” the, 448.
“South Carolina,” the, 436-440.
South Carolina Council of Safety, 418-421.
South Carolina, Governor of, 432, 434.
South Carolina House of Representatives, 432, 434.
South Carolina Legislature, 423-428.
South Carolina Navy, 173, 275, 315, 418-440;
beginnings of, 418-424;
operations of, 418-421, 428-434, 437-440;
navy board, 424-428;
ordinances of 1777 and 1778, 427-428;
privateers, 428-429;
Gillon and the “South Carolina,” 435-440.
South Carolina Navy Board, 424-428.
South Carolina, President of, 423-425, 427, 429, 430.
South Carolina Privy Council, 423, 425, 430.
South Carolina Provincial Congress, 420-422.
South Quay, Va., 400, 406, 455, 456.
Spanish-American War, 179.
Spanish fleet, 166, 173, 242.
Spanish government, 219, 273, 282, 308.
“Speedwell,” the, 389.
“Spitfire,” the, 466.
“Spy,” the, 356, 357, 368, 370.
State Navies, 152-153, 160;
in general, 315-318;
in particular, 318-478.
See Massachusetts navy, Connecticut navy, etc.
Stonington, Conn., 357.
Stormont, Lord, 269-270, 284-289.
Stranger, Captain, 345.
Submarine invention, 363-364.
Subsistence money, 128, 198.
Suffolk, Va., 455-456.
Sullivan, Captain, 430.
Sullivan, General, 469, 470.
Sullivan, James, 321, 323.
Superintendant of Finance, 216, 219, 224, 227.
“Surprise,” the, 262, 281, 287.
Swanzey, Mass., 325.
Swedish Court, 273.
“Sylph,” the, 309.
Talbot, Silas, 469-470.
“Tamar,” the, 419-420.
“Tartar,” the, of the Massachusetts navy, 339, 353.
“Tartar,” the, of the Virginia navy, 406.
Taylor, Richard, 397, 407.
“Tempest,” the, 406-407, 411, 414.
Ternay, Chevalier de, 207.
“Terrible,” the, 448.
Texel, the, Holland, 204, 271, 297-298, 437.
“Thetis,” the, 407, 411.
Thompson, Thomas, 133.
Tilghman, Walter, 447.
Tillinghast, Daniel, 95.
Tories, 338, 348, 370, 448.
Travis, Edward, 397.
“Trepassey,” the, 206.
“Trimmer,” the, 393.
“Truite,” the, 433, 434.
Trumbull, Jonathan, 92, 95, 354, 355.
“Trumbull,” the, 92, 113, 204, 206, 220, 235, 238-239.
Tucker, Samuel, 292.
Tufts, Simon, 420-421.
Turner, George, 227.
Turpin, Joseph, 421.
“Tyrannicide,” the, 325, 328, 342, 343, 345, 349, 352.
Uniforms, of Continental navy, 117-118;
of Massachusetts navy, 327;
of Pennsylvania marines, 377;
of Maryland marines, 441.
Varnum, J. M., 223.
Vergennes, French minister, 261, 284, 285, 289, 291.
Vernon, William, 98-99, 113, 182.
“Victory,” the, 87.
“Virginia,” the frigate, 93, 124.
“Virginia,” the ship, of the Royal navy, 350.
“Virginia,” the ship, of the Virginia navy, 407.
Virginia Board of Trade, 409.
Virginia Board of War, 409.
Virginia commissioners for defence of Chesapeake bay, 415-416.
Virginia Commissioner of Navy, 409, 415.
Virginia Committee of Safety, 396-398.
Virginia General Assembly, 401-404, 408-411, 415.
Virginia Governor and Council, 399, 401, 403, 411.
Virginia Naval Commissioner, 409.
Virginia naval magazines, 401.
Virginia Navy, 152, 315, 396-417, 429, 446-447, 449, 450, 456-458;
beginnings of, 396-403;
navy board, 398-403;
admiralty courts, 403-405;
vessels, 397-398, 405-408, 414-417;
raids, 408, 413-415;
later legislation, 408-413, 415-416;
end of navy, 416-417.
Virginia Navy Board, 398-403, 405, 408, 409, 424.
Virginia navy-yards, 400, 408, 414.
Virginia Provincial Convention, 396, 398, 403.
Wallace, James, 463.
Ward, Artemas, 69, 351.
Ward, Samuel, 81, 83.
Waring, Thomas, 190-191.
Warner, Seth, 74.
Warren, James, 51, 98, 112, 330.
“Warren,” the frigate, 92, 119, 136, 168, 171, 349, 468.
“Warren,” the schooner, 63.
Warwick, Va., 401, 414.
Washington, George, 33, 37, 42, 48, 73, 116, 154, 166, 167, 204,
211,
362, 388, 422, 446, 468, 473;
fleets of, 61-71;
on failure of navy, 184-186;
on committees of Congress, 213.
“Washington,” the, of the Continental navy (frigate), 92, 388.
“Washington,” the, of the Continental navy (ship), 235, 248-249,
393-396.
“Washington,” the, of the Georgia navy, 460-461.
“Washington,” the, of the North Carolina navy, 452-454.
“Washington,” the, of the Rhode Island navy (galley), 466.
“Washington,” the, of the Rhode Island navy (sloop), 464, 465.
“Washington,” the, of the Virginia navy, 406, 456.
“Washington,” the, of Washington’s fleet, 63, 65.
“Wasp,” the, 55, 57, 158.
Waterford, Conn., 370.
Waterbury, David, 77, 358.
“Watt,” the, 206-207.
Weaver, Lieutenant, 58.
Webb, William, 377.
“West Florida,” the, 310-311.
West Indies, the, 80, 151, 161, 165, 167, 169, 173, 175, 179, 207,
236, 237, 242, 283, 305-307, 335, 342, 358, 368-369, 406, 424,
429, 430, 449, 452.
Wethersfield, Conn., 355, 356.
“Weymouth,” the, 368.
Whaley, Commodore, 450.
Whaling fleets, 151, 170, 268, 278-279.
Wharton, John, 96, 97, 101, 196, 374, 387.
Whipple, Abraham, 54-55, 57, 80, 133, 172, 433, 464-465.
Whipple, William, 89, 90, 105-106, 190, 211.
White, Robert, 373.
“Whiting,” the, 360, 369.
Whiting, Thomas, 260.
Wickes, Lambert, 173, 179, 262, 269, 287-291.
Williams, Jonathan, 256.
Williams, J. F., 345.
Williamsburg, Va., 93, 398.
Willing, Captain, 308.
Wilson, Willis, 458.
Wilmington, N. C., 93, 434.
Winder, William, 101, 196.
“Winthrop,” the, 339, 353.
“Wolodimer,” the, 304.
Woodford, Thomas, 193.
Wynkoop, Jacobus, 72, 74.
Wythe, George, 203.
“Yarmouth,” the, 431.
“York,” the, 416.
Yorktown, siege of, 415, 446.
Young, John, 208.
Zubly, John J., 82.
Transcriber’s Notes
footnote 158 Changed: Journals of Continennental Congress
to: Journals of Continental Congress
footnote 257 Changed: Admiralty, to Commisary-General
to: Admiralty, to Commissary-General
footnote 357 Changed: Stevens’s Facsimilies, 1677
to: Stevens’s Facsimiles, 1677
footnote 433 Changed: General Assembly, and the Jounrals
to: General Assembly, and the Journals
pg 87 Changed: This absorbtion was facilitated
to: This absorption was facilitated
pg 194 Changed: dependent on Congress than the Marine Committe
to: dependent on Congress than the Marine Committee
pg 328 Changed: Vessels Goods Wares and Mechandise
to: Vessels Goods Wares and Merchandise
pg 421 Changed: Cochran to proceed to Massachussetts
to: Cochran to proceed to Massachusetts
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Navy of the American revolution : Its administration, its policy, and its achievements" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.