A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

The Naval War of 1812

T >> Theodore Roosevelt >> The Naval War of 1812




Altogether the best criticism on the fight is that written by M. de
la Gravière. [Footnote: "Guerres Maritimes," ii, 272.] "It is
impossible to avoid seeing in the capture of the _Chesapeake_ a new
proof of the enormous power of a good organization, when it has
received the consecration of a few years' actual service on the sea.
On this occasion, in effect, two captains equally renowned, the honor
of two navies, were opposed to each other on two ships of the same
tonnage and number of guns. Never had the chances seemed better
balanced, but Sir Philip Broke had commanded the _Shannon_ for nearly
seven years, while Captain Lawrence had only commanded the _Chesapeake_
for a few days. The first of these frigates had cruised for eighteen
months on the coast of America; the second was leaving port. One had
a crew long accustomed to habits of strict obedience; the other was
manned by men who had just been engaged in mutiny. The Americans were
wrong to accuse fortune on this occasion. Fortune was not fickle,
she was merely logical. The _Shannon_ captured the _Chesapeake_ on
the first of June, 1813, but on the 14th of September, 1806, the day
when he took command of his frigate, Captain Broke had begun to
prepare the glorious termination to this bloody affair."

Hard as it is to breathe a word against such a man as Lawrence,
a very Bayard of the seas, who was admired as much for his dauntless
bravery as he was loved for his gentleness and uprightness, it must
be confessed that he acted rashly. And after he had sailed, it was,
as Lord Howard Douglass has pointed out, a tactical error, however
chivalric to neglect the chance of luffing across the _Shannon's_
stern to rake her; exactly as it was a tactical error of his equally
chivalrous antagonist to have let him have such an opportunity. Hull
would not have committed either error, and would, for the matter of
that, have been an overmatch for either commander. But it must always
be remembered that Lawrence's encounters with the English had not
been such as to give him a high opinion of them. The only foe he
had fought had been inferior in strength, it is true, but had hardly
made any effective resistance. Another sloop, of equal, if not
superior force, had tamely submitted to blockade for several days,
and had absolutely refused to fight. And there can be no doubt that
the _Chesapeake_, unprepared though she was, would have been an
overmatch for the _Guerrière_, _Macedonian_, or _Java_. Altogether
it is hard to blame Lawrence for going out, and in every other respect
his actions never have been, nor will be, mentioned, by either friend
or foe, without the warmest respect. But that is no reason for
insisting that he was ruined purely by an adverse fate. We will do
far better to recollect that as much can be learned from reverses
as from victories. Instead of flattering ourselves by saying the
defeat was due to chance, let us try to find out what the real cause
was, and then take care that it does not have an opportunity to act
again. A little less rashness would have saved Lawrence's life and
his frigate, while a little more audacity on one occasion would have
made Commodore Chauncy famous for ever. And whether a lesson is to
be learned or not, a historian should remember that his profession
is not that of a panegyrist. The facts of the case unquestionably
are that Captain Broke, in fair fight, within sight of the enemy's
harbor, proved conqueror over a nominally equal and in reality slightly
superior force; and that this is the only single-ship action of the
war in which the victor was weaker in force than his opponent. So
much can be gathered by reading only the American accounts. Moreover
accident had little or nothing to do with the gaining of the victory.
The explanation is perfectly easy; Lawrence and Broke were probably
exactly equal in almost every thing that goes to make up a first-class
commander, but one had trained his crew for seven years, and the
other was new to the ship, to the officers, and to the men, and the
last to each other. The _Chesapeake's_ crew must have been of fine
material, or they would not have fought so well as they did.

So much for the American accounts. On the other hand, the capture
of the _Chesapeake_ was, and is, held by many British historians
to "conclusively prove" a good many different things; such as, that
if the odds were anything like equal, a British frigate could always
whip an American, that in a hand-to-hand conflict such would invariably
be the case, etc.; and as this was the only single-ship action of
the war in which the victor was the inferior in force, most British
writers insist that it reflected more honor on them than all the
frigate actions of 1812 put together did on the Americans.

These assertions can be best appreciated by reference to a victory
won by the French in the year of the Battle of the Nile. On the 14th
of December, 1798, after two hours' conflict, the French 24-gun
corvette _Bayonnaise_ captured, by boarding, the English 32-gun
frigate _Ambuscade_. According to James the _Ambuscade_ threw at
a broadside 262 pounds of shot, and was manned by 190 men, while
the _Bayonnaise_ threw 150 pounds, and had on board supernumeraries
and passenger soldiers enough to make in all 250 men. According
to the French historian Rouvier [Footnote: "Histoire des Marins
Français sous la République," par Charles Rouvier, Lieutenant de
Vaisseau. Paris, 1868.] the broadside force was 246 pounds against
80 pounds; according to Troude [Footnote: "Batailles Navales."] it
was 270 pounds against 112. M. Léon Guérin, in his voluminous but
exceedingly prejudiced and one-sided work, [Footnote: "Histoire
Maritime de France" (par Léon Guérin, Historien titulaire de la
Marine, Membre de la Legion d'Honneur), vi. 142 (Paris, 1852).] makes
the difference even greater. At any rate the English vessel was
vastly the superior in force, and was captured by boarding, after
a long and bloody conflict in which she lost 46, and her antagonist
over 50, men. During all the wars waged with the Republic and the
Empire, no English vessel captured a French one as much superior
to itself as the _Ambuscade_ was to the _Bayonnaise_, precisely as
in the war of 1812 no American vessel captured a British opponent
as much superior to itself as the _Chesapeake_ was to the _Shannon_.
Yet no sensible man can help acknowledging, in spite of these and
a few other isolated instances, that at that time the French were
inferior to the English, and the latter to the Americans.

It is amusing to compare the French histories of the English with
the English histories of the Americans, and to notice the similarity
of the arguments they use to detract from their opponents' fame.
Of course I do not allude to such writers as Lord Howard Douglass
or Admiral de la Gravière, but to men like William James and Léon
Guérin, or even O. Troude. James is always recounting how American
ships ran away from British ones, and Guérin tells as many anecdotes
of British ships who fled from French foes. James reproaches the
Americans for adopting a "Parthian" mode of warfare, instead of
"bringing to in a bold and becoming manner." Precisely the same
reproaches are used by the French writers, who assert that the English
would not fight "fairly," but acquired an advantage by manoeuvring.
James lays great stress on the American long guns; so does Lieutenant
Rouvier on the British carronades. James always tells how the
Americans avoided the British ships, when the crews of the latter
demanded to be led aboard; Troude says the British always kept at
long shot, while the French sailors "demandérent, à grands cris,
l'abordage." James says the Americans "hesitated to grapple" with
their foes "unless they possessed a twofold superiority"; Guérin
that the English "never dared attack" except when they possessed
"une supériorité énorme." The British sneer at the "mighty dollar";
the French at the "eternal guinea." The former consider Decatur's
name as "sunk" to the level of Porter's or Bainbridge's; the latter
assert that the "presumptuous Nelson" was inferior to any of the
French admirals of the time preceding the Republic. Says James:
"The Americans only fight well when they have the superiority of
force on their side"; and Lieutenant Rouvier: "Never have the
English vanquished us with an undoubted inferiority of force."

On June 12, 1813, the small cutter _Surveyor_, of 6 12-pound
carronades, was lying in York River, in the Chesapeake, under the
command of Mr. William S. Travis; her crew consisted of but 15 men.
[Footnote: Letter of W. S. Travis, June 16, 1813.] At nightfall
she was attacked by the boats of the _Narcissus_ frigate, containing
about 50 men, under the command of Lieutenant John Creerie. [Footnote:
James, vi. 334.] None of the carronades could be used; but Mr. Travis
made every preparation that he could for defence. The Americans
waited till the British were within pistol shot before they opened
their fire; the latter dashed gallantly on, however, and at once
carried the cutter. But though brief, the struggle was bloody;
5 of the Americans were wounded, and of the British 3 were killed
and 7 wounded. Lieutenant Creerie considered his opponents to have
shown so much bravery that he returned Mr. Travis his sword, with
a letter as complimentary to him as it was creditable to the writer.
[Footnote: The letter, dated June 13th, is as follows: "Your gallant
and desperate attempt to defend your vessel against more than double
your number, on the night of the 12th instant, excited such admiration
on the part of your opponents as I have seldom witnessed, and induced
me to return you the sword you had so nobly used, in testimony of
mine. Our poor fellows have suffered severely, occasioned chiefly,
if not solely, by the precautions you had taken to prevent surprise.
In short, I am at a loss which to admire most, the previous arrangement
aboard the _Surveyor_, or the determined manner in which her deck
was disputed inch by inch. I am, sir," etc.]

As has been already mentioned, the Americans possessed a large force
of gun-boats at the beginning of the war. Some of these were fairly
sea-worthy vessels, of 90 tons burden, sloop--or schooner-rigged,
and armed with one or two long, heavy guns, and sometime with several
light carronades to repel boarders. [Footnote: According to a letter
from Captain Hugh G. Campbell (in the Naval Archives, "Captains'
Letters," 1812, vol. ii. Nos. 21 and 192), the crews were distributed
as follows: ten men and a boy to a long 32. seven men and a boy to
a long 9. and five men and a boy to a carronade, exclusive of petty
officers. Captain Campbell complains of the scarcity of men, and
rather naively remarks that he is glad the marines have been
withdrawn from the gun boats, as this may make the commanders of
the latter keep a brighter lookout than formerly.] Gun-boats of this
kind, together with the few small cutters owned by the government,
were serviceable enough. They were employed all along the shores
of Georgia and the Carolinas, and in Long Island Sound, in protecting
the coasting trade by convoying parties of small vessels from one
port to another, and preventing them from being molested by the
boats of any of the British frigates. They also acted as checks
upon the latter in their descents upon the towns and plantations,
occasionally capturing their boats and tenders, and forcing them to
be very cautious in their operations. They were very useful in
keeping privateers off the coast, and capturing them when they
came too far in. The exploits of those on the southern coast will
be mentioned as they occurred. Those in Long Island Sound never
came into collision with the foe, except for a couple of slight
skirmishes at very long range; but in convoying little fleets of
coasters, and keeping at bay the man-of-war boats sent to molest
them, they were invaluable; and they also kept the Sound clear of
hostile privateers.

Many of the gun-boats were much smaller than those just mentioned,
trusting mainly to their sweeps for motive power, and each relying
for offence on one long pivot gun, a 12- or 18-pounder. In the
Chesapeake there was a quite a large number of these small gallies,
with a few of the larger kind, and here it was thought that by
acting together in flotillas the gun-boats might in fine weather
do considerable damage to the enemy's fleet by destroying detached
vessels, instead of confining themselves to the more humble tasks
in which their brethren elsewhere were fairly successful. At this
period Denmark, having lost all her larger ships of war, was confining
herself purely to gun-brigs. These were stout little crafts, with
heavy guns, which, acting together, and being handled with spirit
and skill, had on several occasions in calm weather captured small
British sloops, and had twice so injured frigates as to make their
return to Great Britain necessary; while they themselves had frequently
been the object of successful cutting-out expeditions. Congress
hoped that our gun-boats would do as well as the Danish; but for
a variety of reasons they failed utterly in every serious attack that
they made on a man-of-war, and were worse than useless for all but
the various subordinate employments above mentioned. The main
reason for this failure was in the gun-boats themselves. They were
utterly useless except in perfectly calm weather, for in any wind
the heavy guns caused them to careen over so as to make it difficult
to keep them right side up, and impossible to fire. Even in smooth
water they could not be fought at anchor, requiring to be kept in
position by means of sweeps; and they were very unstable, the recoil
of the guns causing them to roll so as to make it difficult to aim
with any accuracy after the first discharge, while a single shot
hitting one put it _hors de combat_. This last event rarely happened,
however, for they were not often handled with any approach to
temerity, and, on the contrary, usually made their attacks at a
range that rendered it as impossible to inflict as to receive harm.
It does not seem as if they were very well managed; but they were
such ill-conditioned craft that the best officers might be pardoned
for feeling uncomfortable in them. Their operations throughout the
war offer a painfully ludicrous commentary on Jefferson's remarkable
project of having our navy composed exclusively of such craft.

The first aggressive attempt made with the gun-boats was
characteristically futile. On June 20th 15 of them, under Captain
Tarbell, attacked the _Junon_, 38, Captain Sanders, then lying becalmed
in Hampton Roads, with the _Barossa_, 36, and _Laurestinus_, 24,
near her. The gun-boats, while still at very long range, anchored,
and promptly drifted round so that they couldn't shoot. Then they
got under way, and began gradually to draw nearer to the _Junon_.
Her defence was very feeble; after some hasty and ill-directed
vollies she endeavored to beat out of the way. But meanwhile, a
slight breeze having sprung up, the _Barossa_, Captain Sherriff,
approached near enough to take a hand in the affair, and at once
made it evident that she was a more dangerous foe than the _Junon_,
though a lighter ship. As soon as they felt the effects of the
breeze the gun-boats became almost useless and, the _Barossa's_ fire
being animated and well aimed, they withdrew. They had suffered
nothing from the _Junon_, but during the short period she was engaged,
the _Barossa_ had crippled one boat and slightly damaged another;
one man was killed and two wounded. The _Barossa_ escaped unscathed
and the _Junon_ was but slightly injured. Of the combatants, the
_Barossa_ was the only one that came off with credit, the _Junon_
behaving, if any thing, rather worse than the gun-boats. There was
no longer any doubt as to the amount of reliance to be placed on the
latter. [Footnote: Though the flotilla men did nothing in the boats,
they acted with the most stubborn bravery at the battle of Bladensburg.
The British Lieutenant Graig, himself a spectator, thus writes of
their deeds on that occasion ("Campaign at Washington," p. 119).
"Of the sailors, however, it would be injustice not to speak in the
terms which their conduct merits. They were employed as gunners, and
not only did they serve their guns with a quickness and precision
which astonished their assailants, but they stood till some of them
were actually bayoneted with fuses in their hands; nor was it till
their leader was wounded and taken, and they saw themselves deserted
on all sides by the soldiers, that they quitted the field." Certainly
such men could not be accused of lack of courage. Something else is
needed to account for the failure of the gun-boat system.]

On June 20, 1813, a British force of three 74's, one 64, four frigates,
two sloops, and three transports was anchored off Craney Island.
On the north-west side of this island was a battery of 18-pounders,
to take charge of which Captain Cassin, commanding the naval forces
at Norfolk, sent ashore one hundred sailors of the _Constellation_,
under the command of Lieutenants Neale, Shubrick, and Saunders, and
fifty marines under Lieutenant Breckenbridge.[Footnote: Letter of
Captain John Cassin, June 23, 1813.] On the morning of the 22d they
were attacked by a division of 15 boats, containing 700 men,
[Footnote: James, vi, 337.] seamen, marines, chasseurs, and soldiers
of the 102d regiment, the whole under the command of Captain Pechell,
of the _San Domingo_, 74. Captain Hanchett led the attack in the
_Diadem's_ launch. The battery's guns were not fired till the British
were close in, when they opened with destructive effect. While still
some seventy yards from the guns the _Diadem's_ launch grounded,
and the attack was checked. Three of the boats were now sunk by shot,
but the water was so shallow that they remained above water; and while
the fighting was still at its height, some of the _Constellation's_
crew, headed by Midshipman Tatnall, waded out and took possession
of them. [Footnote: "Life of Commodore Josiah Tatnall," by Charles
C. Jones, Jr. (Savannah, 1878), p. 17.] A few of their crew threw
away their arms and came ashore with their captors; others escaped
to the remaining boats, and immediately afterward the flotilla made
off in disorder having lost 91 men. The three captured barges were
large, strong boats, one called the Centipede being fifty feet long,
and more formidable than many of the American gun-vessels. The
_Constellation's_ men deserve great credit for their defence, but
the British certainly did not attack with their usual obstinacy. When
the foremost boats were sunk, the water was so shallow and the bottom
so good that the Americans on shore, as just stated, at once waded
out to them; and if in the heat of the fight Tatnall and his seamen
could get _out_ to the boats, the 700 British ought to have been
able to get _in_ to the battery, whose 150 defenders would then have
stood no chance. [Footnote: James comments on this repulse as "a
defeat as discreditable to those that caused it as honorable to those
that suffered in it." "Unlike most other nations, the Americans in
particular, the British, when engaged in expeditions of this nature,
always rest their hopes of success upon valor rather than on numbers."
These comments read particularly well when it is remembered that
the assailants outnumbered the assailed in the proportion of 5 to 1.
It is monotonous work to have to supplement a history by a running
commentary on James' mistakes and inventions; but it is worth while
to prove once for all the utter unreliability of the author who is
accepted in Great Britain as the great authority about the war. Still,
James is no worse than his compeers. In the American Coggeshall's
"History of Privateers," the misstatements are as gross and the
sneers in as poor taste--the British, instead of the Americans,
being the objects.]

On July 14, 1813, the two small vessels _Scorpion_ and _Asp_, the
latter commanded by Mr. Sigourney, got under way from out of the
Yeocomico Creek, [Footnote: Letter of Midshipman McClintock, July
15, 1813.] and at 10 A.M. discovered in chase the British brig-sloops
_Contest_, Captain James Rattray, and _Mohawk_, Captain Henry D.
Byng. [Footnote: James, vi, 343.] The _Scorpion_ beat up the
Chesapeake, but the dull-sailing _Asp_ had to reenter the creek;
the two brigs anchored off the bar and hoisted out their boats,
under the command of Lieutenant Rodger C. Curry; whereupon the _Asp_
cut her cable and ran up the creek some distance. Here she was
attacked by three boats, which Mr. Sigourney and his crew of twenty
men, with two light guns, beat off; but they were joined by two
others, and the five carried the _Asp_, giving no quarter. Mr.
Sigourney and 10 of his men were killed or wounded, while the
British also suffered heavily, having 4 killed and 7 (including
Lieutenant Curry) wounded. The surviving Americans reached the shore,
rallied under Midshipman H. McClintock (second in command), and when
the British retired after setting the _Asp_ on fire, at once boarded
her, put out the flames, and got her in fighting order; but they
were not again molested.

On July 29th, while the _Junon_, 38, Captain Sanders, and _Martin_,
18, Captain Senhouse, were in Delaware Bay, the latter grounded on
the outside of Crow's Shoal; the frigate anchored within supporting
distance, and while in this position the two ships were attacked by
the American flotilla in those waters, consisting of eight gun-boats,
carrying each 25 men and one long 32, and two heavier block-sloops,
[Footnote: Letter of Lieutenant Angus, July 30, 1813.] commanded by
Lieutenant Samuel Angus. The flotilla kept at such a distance that
an hour's cannonading did no damage whatever to anybody; and during
that time gun-boat No. 121, Sailing-master Shead, drifted a mile
and a half away from her consorts. Seeing this the British made a
dash at her, in 7 boats, containing 140 men, led by Lieutenant Philip
Westphal. Mr. Shead anchored and made an obstinate defence, but at
the first discharge the gun's pintle gave way, and the next time
it was fired the gun-carriage was almost torn to pieces. He kept
up a spirited fire of small arms, in reply to the boat-carronades
and musketry of the assailants; but the latter advanced steadily
and carried the gun-boat by boarding, 7 of her people being wounded,
while 7 of the British were killed and 13 wounded. [Footnote: Letter
of Mr. Shead. Aug. 5, 1813.] The defence of No. 121 was very creditable,
but otherwise the honor of the day was certainly with the British;
whether because the gun-boats were themselves so worthless or because
they were not handled boldly enough, they did no damage, even to
the grounded sloop, that would seem to have been at their mercy.
[Footnote: The explanation possibly lies in the fact that the
gun-boats had worthless powder. In the Naval Archives there is a
letter from Mr. Angus ("Masters' Commandant Letters," 1813, No. 3:
see also No. 91), in which he says that the frigate's shot passed
over them, while theirs could not even reach the sloop. He also
encloses a copy of a paper, signed by the other gun-boat officers,
which runs: "We, the officers of the vessels comprising the Delaware
flotilla, protest against the powder as being unfit for service."]

On June 18th the American brig-sloop _Argus_, commanded by Lieutenant
William Henry Allen, late first of the _United States_, sailed from
New York for France, with Mr. Crawford, minister for that country,
aboard, and reached L'Orient on July 11th, having made one prize
on the way. On July 14th she again sailed, and cruised in the chops
of the Channel, capturing and burning ship after ship, and creating
the greatest consternation among the London merchants; she then
cruised along Cornwall and got into St. George's Channel, where the
work of destruction went on. The labor was very severe and harassing,
the men being able to get very little rest. [Footnote: Court of
Inquiry into loss of _Argus_, 1815.] On the night of August 13th,
a brig laden with wine from Oporto was captured and burnt, and
unluckily many of the crew succeeded in getting at some of the
cargo. At 5 A.M. on the 14th a large brig-of-war was discovered
standing down under a cloud of canvas. [Footnote: Letter of Lieutenant
Watson, March 2, 1815.] This was the British brig-sloop _Pelican_,
Captain John Fordyce Maples, which, from information received at
Cork three days previous, had been cruising especially after the
_Argus_, and had at last found her; St. David's Head bore east
five leagues (lat. 52° 15' N. and 5° 50' W.)

The small, fine-lined American cruiser, with her lofty masts and
long spars, could easily have escaped from her heavier antagonist:
but Captain Allen had no such intention, and, finding he could not
get the weather-gage, he shortened sail and ran easily along on the
starboard tack, while the _Pelican_ came down on him with the wind
(which was from the south) nearly aft. At 6 A.M. the _Argus_ wore
and fired her port guns within grape distance, the _Pelican_ responding
with her starboard battery, and the action began with great spirit
on both sides. [Footnote: Letter of Captain Maples to Admiral
Thornborough, Aug. 14, 1813.] At 6.04 a round shot carried off Captain
Allen's leg, inflicting a mortal wound, but he stayed on deck till
he fainted from loss of blood. Soon the British fire carried away
the main-braces, main-spring-stay, gaff, and try-sail mast of the
_Argus_; the first lieutenant, Mr. Watson, was wounded in the head
by a grape-shot and carried below; the second lieutenant, Mr. U. H.
Allen (no relation of the captain), continued to fight the ship
with great skill. The _Pelican's_ fire continued very heavy, the
_Argus_ losing her spritsail-yard and most of the standing rigging
on the port side of the foremast. At 6.14 Captain Maples bore up
to pass astern of his antagonist, but Lieutenant Allen luffed into
the wind and threw the main-top-sail aback, getting into a beautiful
raking position [Footnote: Letter of Lieutenant Watson.]; had the
men at the guns done their duty as well as those on the quarter-deck
did theirs, the issue of the fight would have been very different;
but, as it was, in spite of her favorable position, the raking
broadside of the _Argus_ did little damage. Two or three minutes
afterward the _Argus_ lost the use of her after-sails through having
her preventer-main-braces and top-sail tie shot away, and fell off
before the wind, when the _Pelican_ at 6.18 passed her stern, raking
her heavily, and then ranged up on her starboard quarter. In a few
minutes the wheel-ropes and running-rigging of every description were
shot away, and the _Argus_ became utterly unmanageable. The _Pelican_
continued raking her with perfect impunity, and at 6.35 passed her
broadside and took a position on her starboard bow, when at 6.45
the brigs fell together, and the British "were in the act of boarding
when the _Argus_ struck her colors," [Footnote: Letter of Captain
Maples.] at 6.45 A.M. The _Pelican_ carried, besides her regular
armament, two long 6's as stern-chasers, and her broadside weight
of metal was thus: [Footnote: James, vi, 320.]

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.