William Henry Harrison’s Gold Medal

Tags

Battle of the Thames, Congressional Gold Medal, Indian wars, Isaac Shelby, Pneumonia, Presidents who served in Congress, Tecumseh, War of 1812, William Henry Harrison

While researching today’s #onthisday Tweet (also on Facebook!), I turned up an interesting little fact. Read on to learn more about War of 1812 hero–oh, and president–William Henry Harrison.

William Henry Harrison, c. 1840, print attributed to John Sartain. (Library of Congress)

Born in Virginia, William Henry Harrison first made his name in the army fighting campaigns against Indians. He found his way to posts in the territorial governments of the midwest and served as governor of the Indiana Territory for twelve years. When Tecumseh and other Indian leaders resisted white incursions more and more stridently, Harrison managed to get himself in command of the troops once again. The 1811 battle near Tippecanoe started badly for Harrison and his men, but in end, the U.S. Army won the fight; white Americans generally celebrated the widely-known victory.

Shortly thereafter, the U.S. and Britain returned to a state of outright war. In Harrison’s area, many Indians, such as those in Tecumseh’s alliance, were fighting alongside the British to drive the Americans back east. On October 5, 1813, Harrison led his forces to a significant–and rare–American victory against the British and their allies in Ontario at the Battle of the Thames. Tecumseh was killed and his alliance fatally damaged. Soon, Harrison was traveling the east and enjoying the admiration of Americans starved for good news from the war’s fronts.

From the Statutes at Large (see below for citation/link.)

In 1818, Congress chose to honor Harrison, along with Isaac Shelby of Kentucky, with a Congressional Gold Medal for their part in the 1813 victory. They were the among the last of the those honored for their roles in the War of 1812. Harrison served two terms in the U.S. House and most of a term in the Senate, and he held various territorial, state, and federal posts before being elected president in 1840. He gave his lengthy inaugural address on March 4, 1841 and died of pneumonia on April 4. When elected, he was the oldest man to have been elected president, and he still holds the title for the shortest time in the office.

The Miller Center biography of Harrison points out that he was quick to strive for plaudits and praise as well as lucrative appointments, so it’s interesting to note that Harrison’s short time in the House and the awarding of his Congressional Gold Medal coincide. Harrison represented Ohio from 1815-1819 in the House and thus had the opportunity to vote on the resolution honoring himself. The Annals of Congress (page 1648) note only that the resolution was passed in the House–no mention of debates or congratulations. However, several days later, the House was debating the merits of a similar resolution honoring other War of 1812 officers; the Annals record that now Harrison rose to “bear testimony to the gallant services of the gentlemen of the Northwestern army, and took the opportunity of expressing briefly his sense of the distinguished honor to which he had recently himself received at the hands of Congress–a reward more dear to him than any other that could be conferred on him, but which he must look on as due to the gallant army which he had the honor to command rather than to his merits, etc.” (page 1671)

A Congressional Gold Medal is no small honor. Intriguing that it came Harrison’s way while he was serving in the body that grants it!

To learn more about William Henry Harrison, see:
Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Miller Center biography, including the essay on “Life Before the Presidency” for information about Harrison’s military and congressional careers.
White House, History and Grounds, William Henry Harrison.

Additional sources:
Glassman, Matthew Eric. Congressional Gold Medals, 1776-2010. Congressional Research Service. Page 21.
Statutes at Large, 15th Congress, First Session, page 476.

Advertisements

200 Years Ago, DC Burned

Tags

barber, Battle of Bladensburg, Burning of Washington, Commodore Barney, Dixon, General Robert Ross, Sewall Belmont House, War of 1812

In the evening on August 24, 1814, British troops led by Major General Robert Ross arrived in Washington after taking casualties but defeating a small American force at nearby Bladensburg, MD. The short version of the story notes that shots were fired at the British, who responded by burning the public buildings in the city before departing the next day. For more, here’s an excerpt from John McCavitt’s article from the upcoming issue of The Capitol Dome. Look out for the full article soon, which includes a new explanation for why the British chose to burn only some of the buildings in the capital. Here, McCavitt discusses who might have fired those infamous shots.

Family portrait of General Robert Ross, reproduced courtesy of Mr. Stephen Campbell, Rostrevor, County Down, Northern Ireland

 

Excerpt from “Capitol Conflagrator? Major General Robert Ross”
…A parley to discuss terms of surrender had been sounded by drum and by trumpet. According to the British they carried a flag of truce.¹ No response was received to the sounding of a parley. As [Major General] Ross’s small party approached the Capitol and passed the Sewall Belmont house on the way, a volley of shots rang out. Two British soldiers were killed and several were wounded.² Ross himself narrowly missed death or serious injury. His horse, however, was killed and the mount of the trumpeter also was shot.³

Several British officers reported that the firing came not only from the Sewall Belmont house but from other nearby houses, as well as from a party of up to three hundred Americans based at the Capitol.⁴ Ross ordered up a brigade of troops and instructed them to fire a volley of shots at the Capitol with a view to deterring further resistance, reinforcing the impression that the British believed they had come under fire from the hallowed corridors of the American legislature.⁵

….In the years since the British occupation of Washington, debate has raged about the identity and number of assailants who opened fire on Major General Ross and his advance guard. Most American accounts attributed the attack on Ross to an Irish barber named Dixon, also known as Dickson.⁶ “Chief barber” to Congress for more than twenty years, for some he was a Figaro-type, a talkative, good-humoured man.⁷ While there is evidence to suggest that Dickson was involved in the attack on Ross, he was far from the only one who opened fire on the British.⁸ It was a volley of shots that rang out, not just a single report. Again, while they may not have acted alone, the hardest evidence about who attacked Ross indicates the involvement of some of [Commodore Joshua] Barney’s sailors who had remained in the Capitol area [after the Battle of Bladensburg earlier that day].⁹ The Capitol and the houses from which shots were fired at the British were not immediately burnt after the shooting incident. Still Ross tarried in the hope of negotiating a deal.¹⁰

[But t]he attack on Ross and his advance guard indicated to the British that the Americans were not going to negotiate. And so the burning began.

 

Notes
1. G.R. Gleig, The Campaigns of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans (1821; 3rd ed., corrected and revised, London: John Murray, 1827), p. 129.
2. T.A.J. Burnett, The Rise and Fall of a Regency Dandy: The Life and Times of Scrope Berdmore Davies, (London: Murray, 1981), pp. 223-25.
3. Ibid.
4. James Scott, Recollections of a Naval Life (London: R. Bentley, 1834), 3:298; Michael Crawford, ed., The Naval War of 1812: A Documentary History (Washington, D.C.: Naval Historical Center, 2002), 3:220-23; MacDougall letter to Times (London), May 25, 1861.
5. Richard N. Cote, Strength and Honor: The Life of Dolley Madison (Mt. Pleasant, S.C.: Corinthian Books, 2005), p. 303.
6. Walter Lord, The Dawn’s Early Light (New York: Norton’s, 1972), p. 161.
7. “Sketches of Private Life and Character of William H. Crawford,” Southern Literary Messenger 3(April 1837):262-65.
8. Glenn Tucker, Poltroons and Patriots: A Popular Account of the War of 1812 (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1954), 2:553.
9. Lord, Dawn’s Early Light, p. 161. See also Steve Vogel, Through the Perilous Fight: Six Weeks That Saved the Nation (New York: Random House, 2013), p. 168.
10. Tucker, Poltroons and Patriots, 2:553.

Jean Lafitte: The Patriot Pirate

Tags

Barataria Bay, Battle of New Orleans, Jean Lafitte, piracy in the U.S.

–by Katherine East, USCHS intern

Portrait of Lafitte by E. H. Suydam for Lyle Saxon’s book on the pirate.

“He left a Corsair’s name to other times,
Link’d with one virtue, and a thousand crimes.”

These are the final two lines from the Lord Byron poem, “The Corsair.” This widely popular poem could very well be based on the life and adventures of French-American pirate, Jean Lafitte.[1]

Many pirates leave behind treasure. Jean Lafitte left behind a legacy.

A man of French descent, Jean Lafitte managed a large smuggling settlement on the mouth of the Mississippi River coined Barataria Bay during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This group of “privateers,” as they preferred to be called, pillaged foreign ships and resold their accumulated goods, including slaves, in a subversive marketplace. Jean Lafitte was a wanted man. He remained a wanted man, until the United States realized his military potential. In return for a pardon from the United States, Jean Lafitte fought on behalf of the United States in the War of 1812. The British made Lafitte generous offers similar to those of the United States. Without formal acceptance, Lafitte slyly negotiated with the British and passed on essential information to the United States that could prove useful in oncoming attacks.[2]

Jean Lafitte helped immensely in winning what became known as the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1814. In this significant battle, U.S. forces led by Major General Andrew Jackson successfully warded off a British invasion of American territories accumulated from the Louisiana Purchase. Lafitte was responsible not only for readying his own group of privateers for battle, but for also supplying mass amounts of weaponry and gun powder, the bulk of which may or may not have been bootlegged.

c. 1890 Kurz and Allison lithograph of the Battle of New Orleans (Library of Congress)

Joseph Geringer at Crime Library noted that “Old Hickory” himself was surprised at how unruffled Lafitte and his privateers remained during battle. The legend goes that as Jackson’s men were trembling in fear prior to an attack, Lafitte and his men calmly made coffee. Pleasantly surprised at their tranquility, Andrew Jackson complimented the pleasant aroma, to which one of the pirates cheekily replied, “Its hickory flavored, mon generale!”[3]

The daring nature and unwavering courage of Jean Lafitte and his men paid off. Lafitte and his battalion of pirates fought along side a diverse group of farmers, laborers, and slaves to defend America against British attack. In the spirit of freedom, these men fought relentlessly leading up to the British retreat. British losses added up to over 2,000, while the United States lost 101 collectively. The Battle of New Orleans was the final major battle of the War of 1812.[4]

Jean Lafitte and his Baratarian men, once thought a substantial nuisance to the provincial Governors of the day,² ended up having an immensely positive impact in the Battle of New Orleans and the War of 1812 in its entirety.

That is why Jean Lafitte’s legacy as a pirate may also be considered that of a patriot.

---

[1] Keyes, Pam. “How Laffite Became the Real-Life Byronic Hero.” Laffite Society Chronicles, 2012, 19-22.

[2] Sugden, John. “Jean Lafitte and the British Offer of 1814.” Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association 20, no. 2 (Spring 1979): 159-67.

[3] Geringer, Joseph. “Jean Lafitte: Gentleman Pirate Of New Orleans.” Crime Library. 2013.

[4] McManus, John C. “THE SPIRIT OF NEW ORLEANS.” Military History 25, no. 2 (May/June 2008): 28-33.

The Treaty of Ghent

Tags

Battle of New Orleans, John Quincy Adams, Treaty of Ghent

–by Leah Shafer, USCHS intern

John Quincy Adams, c. 1825. Engraving by James Barton Longacre. (Library of Congress)

In the midst of negotiating the resolution of the War of 1812 with Great Britain, U.S. Minister to Russia John Quincy Adams wrote home to his father, the nation’s second president. “The whole compass of the diplomatic [still?] employed by the British Government in this negotiation has consisted in consuming time, without coming to any conclusion,” Quincy Adams wrote from Ghent, Belgium, on October 27, 1814.

Lord Castlereagh, original picture by T. Lawrence. 1814. (Library of Congress)

He went on to explain the last year of trying, and mainly waiting, to configure a resolution: Lord Castlereagh, the British Foreign Secretary, had proposed the negotiation in November 1813, eleven months before and less than a year and a half into the war. The following January, President Madison had agreed to settling the dispute. In February, the British government had been informed of the appointment of the American ambassadors (or “Plenipotentiaries,” as they were called). The British negotiators then spent an entire month delaying the appointment of their commissioners until the American Plenipotentiaries gave them official notice that they were at the “official meeting place” which both sides had agreed upon…but then they spent six weeks moving the operation to Ghent. Diplomats Henry Clay and Jonathan Russell arrived in Gothenburg on April 11. Finally, wrote Quincy Adams, the British representatives “left us from the 21^st of June to the 6^th of August waiting here for the appearance of their Plenipotentiaries.” And after all that, what did the Americans finally gain?

Adams was understandably exasperated. For such a drawn-out process, the Americans only wanted one simple goal: to restore conditions to the way they had been before the war. In the final draft of the Treaty, neither side lost or gained territory, so the Americans eventually got what they’d asked for—unlike the British, who entered negotiations hoping that each side would keep what it had won during the war.

The final resolution of 11 articles, titled the “Treaty of Ghent,” was signed by the Plenipotentiaries on December 24, 1816. Common myth therefore has it that the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815—the huge American victory which turned Andrew Jackson into a hero—actually occurred after the war had ended. However, because neither Great Britain nor the United States officially ratified the peace treaty until after the battle—Great Britain on January 27, 1815 and the United States Senate on February 16, 1815—the battle of New Orleans can still technically be considered within the confines of the War of 1812.

An article in the Daily National Intelligencer on February 23, 1815 titled “All the Points Gained” declared that the U.S. had succeeded in its four objectives for which it entered the war:

1. “To put an end to the unretaliated spoliations of our Commerce
2. To resist the Orders in Council.
3. To oppose the practice of Impressment.
4. To vindicate the Honor the Nation.”

Clearly, for all of Quincy Adams’ waiting and frustration, the United States did in the War of 1812 what it set out to do, and the “Honor of the Nation” was reassured. (Less well known is that the second objective in the war, “to resist the Orders in Council,” had been a moot point for two years. Almost as soon as the war began, the British had repealed the Orders in Council, which had curbed American trade with Europe.) The last war between the United States and Great Britain had ended.

Works Cited

Adams, John Quincy. John Quincy Adams to John Adams, October 27, 1813. Extract. From Library of Congress, The James Madison Papers. (accessed May 7, 2013).

“All the Points Gained.” Daily National Intelligencer, February 23, 1815. 19^th Century U.S. Newspapers (GT3017472560).

Horwitz, Tony and Brian Wolly. “The 10 Things You Didn’t Know About the War of 1812.” Smithsonian.com, May 22, 2012. (accessed May 8, 2013).

“Transcript of Treaty of Ghent (1814).” http://www.ourdocuments.gov. (accessed May 7, 2013).

“The Treaty of Ghent.” National Park Service. Last updated April 24, 2013. (accessed May 7, 2013).

“The Treaty of Ghent.” The War of 1812. PBS. Last updated 2013. (accessed May 7, 2013).

200th Anniversary of USS Constitution’s Defeat of HMS Guerriere

Tags

HMS Guerriere, USS Constitution, War of 1812

Yesterday marked the 200th anniversary of the defeat of the H.M.S. Guerriere by the USS Constitution in the War of 1812. To commemorate that occasion, the ship set sail from Boston Harbor yesterday, the first time it has sailed since it turned 200 years old in 1997, for a quick, fifteen minute trip around the harbor. The ship is the Navy’s oldest commissioned warship afloat, and after its historic victory over the Guerriere, the Constitution earned the nickname, “Old Ironsides.”

If you’ve been following our blog for a while then you know we featured a post on this historic naval battle back in April, written by our spring intern, who like many others, had an interest in the naval aspects of the War of 1812. The post, The Naval War of 1812: USS Constitution vs. HMS Guerriere, is a fascinating read and a great way to commemorate this anniversary. Enjoy!

Major General Robert Ross and the War of 1812

Tags

Battle of Bladensburg, Burning of the Capitol, Major General Robert Ross, War of 1812

–by Patrick McGuire, USCHS intern, with an introduction by Joanna Hallac

To kick off our August Brown Bag series yesterday, which we told you about on Monday, Dr. John McCavitt introduced the audience to Major General Robert Ross and his time in the British Army during the War of 1812, most notably his role in the burning of the federal buildings of Washington, DC in August 1814. It was a very interesting lecture about a man not terribly well known in this country, despite the prominence he held in setting our capital city afire. As such, one of our interns, Patrick McGuire, decided to delve into the topic a bit more for our readers. Enjoy!

***

Major General Robert Ross was an Irish Major General in the British Army who fought in the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812. Born in 1766 and graduating from Trinity College in Dublin, Ross joined the British Army and rose steadily through the ranks, seeing action in Italy, Spain, Egypt, and the Netherlands. His early campaigns would show him to be an effective leader and earn him commendations for gallantry and the thanks of the British Parliament. Ross served under the Duke of Wellington and was promoted to the rank of Major General in 1812.

A portrait of Major General Robert Ross (Military Society of the War of 1812)

Following Napoleon Bonaparte’s first exile to the island of Elbe, Ross was sent to North America in February 1814 with an army of 4500 men. He was dispatched with the intention of uniting the British commands there under Rear Admiral George Cockburn (pronounced CO-burn) and Vice Admiral Alexander Cochrane. Ross assumed command of all British forces on the eastern coast of the U.S. and coordinated with Admiral Cockburn to attack the American capital city of Washington D. C. Ross landed his troops south of DC in Benedict, MD and marched through Upper Marlboro, MD engaging U.S. forces at the Battle of Bladensburg on August 24, 1814. As usual, during the battle Ross led from the front and had his horse shot from under him, though he would suffer no injuries. Following the defeat of the American forces under Commodore Joshua Barney, Ross’s men advanced toward Washington.

Ross had no intention of destroying DC; however, his troops wanted revenge for the burning of the capital of Upper Canada, York, the previous year. A letter received by Admiral Cockburn–whose flotilla was working its way up the Potomac River–from the Governor General of Upper Canada, Sir George Prevost, detailed recent American actions including the burning of several settlements along the frontier, prompting Ross and Cockburn to take action against American government property in retaliation for the burning of their own capital.

Ross was still unwilling to allow the total destruction of the city or the harming of civilians and sent Lieutenant Colonel Sir William Pringle forward with 100 men to ensure that no unauthorized British forces were in the city and to ensure the safety and well being of the civilians. On their advance to the city on August 26, 1814, the British encountered little resistance, although, Ross would have another horse shot from under him. He issued orders to only burn public buildings such as the White House and the Capitol and to leave private property alone, resulting in little of the city being burned. It is important to note that had a surprise rainstorm not rolled through the District to extinguish the fires prematurely, the Capitol and all the buildings set ablaze that day would have been more severely damaged.

The British, led by Major General Robert Ross, shown after setting fire to the Capitol in 1814 during the War of 1812. Allyn Cox, U.S. Capitol (Architect of the Capitol)

The destruction of Washington led to outrage among Americans and praise among the British; Ross was subsequently persuaded to advance north to attack the heavily fortified city of Baltimore. Major General Ross’s men boarded their transports on the night of August 26^th and landed at North Point beach on September 12^th. The next day, Ross was riding among his forward troops who had stopped to eat breakfast when they came under attack by 230 American regulars. Ross received two wounds in his left arm and the left side of his chest. He was shot by Private Daniel Wells and Private Henry McComas who also died in the engagement. Ross died almost instantly and, despite his reputation as the man who burned Washington, he was regarded with respect by the Americans who fought him.

Sources consulted:

“British Regiments and the Men Who Led Them 1793-1815: 4th Regiment of Foot.”

Anthony Pitch. “The Burning of Washington.”

John McCavitt. “Ross and the White House.”

June 1812: Congress Declares War on Great Britain

Tags

Congress declares war, Henry Clay, impressment, James Madison, USS Chesapeake, War of 1812

–by Don Kennon

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof.

APPROVED, June 18, 1812”

The USS Chesapeake: British impressment of U.S. sailors was one of the causes of the War of 1812. Painting by Frank Muller, courtesy U.S. Naval Historical Center

On June 1, 1812, President James Madison sent a message to Congress recounting the nation’s grievances with Great Britain. Although the message did not overtly call for a declaration of war, its intent was understood by the members of Congress. The House of Representatives deliberated for four days behind closed doors before voting for a declaration of war by a vote of 79-39. The Senate approved the declaration by a vote of 19-13, and President Madison signed the measure into law on June 18—the first time the young nation had declared war. The following day he issued a proclamation of war, calling on the American people to support “all the measures which may be adopted by the constituted authorities for obtaining a speedy, a just, and an honorable peace.”

The congressional vote for declaring war was far from unanimous. No Federalist member voted for the measure, which divided on party lines with Democratic-Republicans favoring war with the Federalists in opposition. Similarly, the vote divided along regional lines as Federalists in New England the Middle Atlantic states opposed the war, whereas Southern and Western members favored going to war.

Historians typically point to four main reasons for the declaration of war. First, the British Orders in Council during the Napoleonic wars prohibited U.S. trade with France, which Americans considered a violation of international law. Second, the British Navy adopted a policy of impressing sailors from U.S. ships for service in the British fleet. In one embarrassing incident in 1807 the HMS Leopard attacked and boarded the American frigate USS Chesapeake and seized four sailors under the pretext that they were British deserters. Third, British forts in Canada and along the northwest border with the United States provided arms and support for American Indians in their opposition to U.S. expansion, particularly the Shawnee Prophet and his brother Tecumseh in their war against American settlers. Fourth, the rise of a faction of anti-British and pro-war members of Congress from the west and the south, known collectively as the War Hawks, drummed up support for war. The most notable War Hawks became influential political leaders for decades to come, including Henry Clay and Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky; Felix Grundy of Tennessee; and John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, and William Lowndes, of South Carolina.

Matthew Harris Jouett’s 1818 portrait of Henry Clay captured the spirit of the charismatic Kentucky politician. Courtesy Transylvania University

 

The Naval War of 1812: USS Constitution vs. HMS Guerriere

Tags

HMS Guerriere, Isaac Hull, James Richard Dacres, naval history, USS Constitution, War of 1812 at sea

Another post in our occasional series on the War of 1812–part two of the story of the USS Constitution!

–by Alex Milnikel, USCHS intern

The Constitution prepares to face the Guerriere. (US Naval Historical Center)

Following the USS Constitution’s noteworthy escape from a five-ship strong Royal Navy squadron, Captain Isaac Hull, unable to keep his rendezvous with Commodore John Rodgers’ force, took his ship into Boston for provisions. Hull remained there for the rest of July, awaiting further orders; however, “not finding any specific orders waiting for him, and fearing being blockaded by a superior force, he quickly put to sea” (Gardiner 40). Hull planned on linking up with Commodore Rodgers’ force at sea or, if unable to do so, to cruise against British shipping coming out of Canada. Upon hearing of a nearby British squadron, which he assumed to be the very squadron Constitution had just escaped from, Hull decided to cruise further south. After sailing for a couple of weeks, on August 18 the Constitution gave chase to an unidentified ship; after pursuing her for two hours, the Constitution discovered that the unknown ship was in fact the American privateer Decatur. Despite the disappointing results of this fruitless chase, the Decatur informed Hull of a British warship which she had sighted the previous day, and the Constitution promptly set off to investigate. Early in the afternoon the next day, August 19, the Constitution “sighted a ship to the east standing westwards, and crowded on sail to close with the stranger” (40). A couple hours later, she was discovered to be a large frigate, the HMS Guerriere, “which with great confidence had backed her main topsail and lay in wait for the American ship to come down” (40).

The Constitution and the Guerriere approach one another. The Constitution is on the right. (US Naval Academy Museum/US Navy)

The 38-gun frigate HMS Guerriere had originally been a French warship, but in 1806 she was captured by the British frigate HMS Blanche. After a repair and refit, she was commissioned into the British Royal Navy; “she was not a particularly large frigate even by European standards, carrying a main battery of thirty 18-pounders (although two were bow-chasers that could not be fired on the broadside)” (40). The Guerriere continued to play a role in the Napoleonic Wars, capturing a couple of French privateers in the West Indies during her service with the British before being transferred to Halifax in 1810. In 1812, after six years of service in the Royal Navy, the Guerriere was in a poor material condition; “like all French-built ships, Guerriere was lightly constructed,” and was actually “en-route to Halifax for a refit” when she encountered the Constitution (40-41). At the time of her encounter with the Constitution, Guerriere was under the command of Captain James Richard Dacres, a very seasoned and skilled officer (40-41).

The crew of the USS Constitution (Naval History and Heritage Command)

As Hull carefully approached the Guerriere, “reducing to fighting sail and double reefing his topsails while clearing for action,” Dacres foolishly wasted his opening broadsides, “firing too early to inflict any damage, possibly because he was more intent on outmaneuvering the Constitution and taking the weather gage, the favoured British position” (40). Hull, however, a seasoned seaman himself, skillfully prevented this positioning through maneuvers that forced the Guerriere to “bore up at about 6pm;” shortly afterwards, the “Constitution ranged up on her opponent’s port side within pistol shot” (40-41). The two ships then began to exchange close-quarters broadsides, and Constitution’s greater firepower quickly took its toll; despite the fact that Guerriere’s well-drilled crew was “firing three broadsides for every two American,” she simply “was not accurate enough to redress the balance in weight of metal” (41). After about 15 minutes, during which time the Guerriere suffered very damaging fire from Constitution’s guns, her mizzen mast was shot away and “went by the board, and Constitution forged ahead, turning across her bow in a perfect raking position” (41). With her fallen mizzen mast acting like a rudder and dragging her around, the Guerriere was unable to shadow the Constitution’s maneuver, allowing the Constitution to rake her with a deadly close-range fire for almost half an hour. Desperate, Dacres tried in a last futile effort to prepare a boarding party, “but as the boarders were assembling, the main mast fell forwards taking the fore mast and jib boom with it,” sealing the British frigate’s fate (41).

Hull, rather than pounding the helpless Guerriere, decided to haul off to repair Constitution’s rigging; after about half an hour he returned to find out whether or not the Guerriere had decided to surrender. When Lieutenant Read, Constitution’s boarding officer, arrived on the Guerriere’s deck and inquired as to whether or not she had struck her flag, Captain Dacres, surveying his ship’s miserable condition and possibly in shock, reportedly replied, “Well, I don’t know; our mizzen mast is gone, our main mast is gone, and, upon the whole, you may say we have struck our flag” (41). All told, Guerriere’s crew had suffered casualties of 15 dead and 63 wounded, “the majority according to Dacres being sustained from grape and musketry when Constitution lay off the British frigate’s bow,” while Constitution in comparison had only 7 dead and 7 wounded (40-42).

"Action between USS Constitution and HMS Guerriere, 19 August 1812," attributed to Thomas Birch. (US Naval Academy Museum/US Navy)

Although Hull wanted to tow the Guerriere as a prize, at daybreak on the 20^th it became clear that she was beyond salvaging. Hull accordingly had the rest of Guerriere’s crew, including the sick and the wounded, transferred as quickly as possible to the Constitution, and in the afternoon fired the wreck; after her main magazine blew up, Guerriere rapidly sank to the bottom. Hull arrived at Boston on August 30, where the news of his victory was greeted with massive celebrations. The Constitution’s victory was really the first good news of the War of 1812 for the U.S. citizenry, “contrasting starkly with the humiliations to U.S. land forces on the Canadian front” that summer (42). On top of that, Dacres’ surrender marked the first time that a British frigate captain had ever surrendered to the infant United States Navy, suggesting to the American public that the all-powerful Royal Navy was not necessarily invincible. Most Americans did not bother to take into account Guerriere’s poor material state at the time of the battle, nor the fact that the Constitution had almost twice as many men manning her as the Guerriere. None of that mattered to the citizenry; all that mattered was that the U.S. had sent one of her ships into combat against a British frigate and, through the skilled seamanship of Hull and his crew as well as the superior ability of the Constitution to both dish out and sustain damage, had come out on top. No more could the U.S. Navy simply be scoffed at by the more established naval powers of Europe; now, having weathered and overcome the fires of combat, with a Royal Navy frigate no less, it was a truly legitimate branch of service and formidable sea power, a foe worthy to be reckoned with. The Constitution’s first major victory in the War of 1812 sealed her place in both the history books and the hearts of the American people, who affectionately coined her now legendary nickname following her victory over Guerriere: “Old Ironsides.”

Sources Cited:
Gardiner, Robert. The Naval War of 1812. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1998. 40-42.

The Naval War of 1812: Flight of the USS Constitution

Tags

Chase of the Constitution, Isaac Hull, naval history, Old Ironsides, USS Constitution

Welcome to the first post in an occasional series about the War of 1812.

–by Alexander Milnikel, USCHS intern

At the start of the War of 1812 in June 1812, Americans, both in the government and amongst the citizenry, did not expect that very much decisive success in the war would be found at sea. As hostilities broke out, the first war aim for both Congress and President James Madison was the successful invasion and conquest of Canada, which many Americans believed, as best expressed by Thomas Jefferson, would only be “a matter of marching,” placing great faith in the abilities of the American regular army and militia forces. (Gardiner, 11) The fledgling United States Navy, on the other hand, remained consistently neglected by both the American public and federal government, albeit not without reason. Building and maintaining warships was expensive, and the U.S. had struggled with debt ever since the end of the Revolutionary War. The U.S. Navy was still less than 20 years old and far from being the super-power naval force that it is today; at the time, the whole of the United States Navy consisted of “fourteen vessels ready for sea-service: the three 44-gun frigates United States, Constitution, President; the smaller frigates Congress, Essex, and John Adams; the ship sloops Hornet and Wasp; brig sloops Argus, Syren and Nautilus; and the smaller brigs Enterprise and Viper,” 5230 seamen, and less than 1000 marines. In contrast, the Royal Navy consisted of “113,600 seamen and 31,400 marines in 1812, and had 548 cruising warships in commission, 102 being line of battle ships.” (Gardiner, 11-30)

Oldest known depiction of the USS Constitution (1813, gouache, attributed to Michele Felice Corne)

Taking these statistics into account, it is not surprising that America’s primary naval strategy throughout the war directed the few seaworthy ships at the USN’s disposal, along with “privateers fitted out by the merchant community,” at inflicting damage on British trade rather than setting up major naval engagements with the Royal Navy itself. (12) However, the American captains, hungry to make both a name for themselves and the young USN, vehemently “sought the glory of capturing British warships,” and they and their crews were certainly up to the task. (12) Despite the youth and small size of the USN, the captains and crew within the ranks already had much wartime experience from combating both the French in the Quasi-War (1798-1800) as well as the Barbary pirates in the First Barbary War (1801-1805). Furthermore, the British were waging a world war with France at the time in the Napoleonic Wars, which placed an enormous strain on Britain’s economic and military resources as well as its manpower. As a result, the British ships sent to fight in the less pressing American conflict, especially in the first year of the war, were generally smaller warships manned by under strength and inexperienced crews, some of which consisted of foreign sailors. Thus, all the pieces were in place for a series of surprise and desperately needed American naval victories. These victories would not only establish the legitimacy of the USN but also serve a valuable political role as well. By consistently defeating the Royal Navy, “the bedrock of British power” and the most powerful naval force in the world at the time, the USN would effectively demonstrate to both the American public and the world that the U.S. could win both on land and at sea against even the toughest of opponents. (Gardiner, 12)

The 44-gun frigate USS Constitution was by far the most successful American warship in the War of 1812 at legitimizing both the USN and America’s sea power. Launched in 1797, the ship and five other frigates had been designed by ship builder Joshua Humphreys in 1794 as part of the founding generation of ships in the USN, serving as America’s capital ships throughout much of its early history. Carrying a main armament of 24-pounders, Humphreys’ 44-gun frigates were original “in having a continuous upper deck – instead of separate quarterdeck and forecastle – allowing them to mount a second complete battery on this so-called spar deck.” (31) Humphreys himself proudly predicted that “the commanders of them [the frigates] will have it in their power to engage, or not, any ship they may think proper; and no ship, under sixty-four (guns), now afloat, but what must submit to them.” (31-32)

During America’s Quasi-War with France, the Constitution escorted numerous merchantmen, sailed multiple times as part of American naval squadrons, and captured six vessels. In the First Barbary War, she served as Captain Edward Preble’s flagship throughout the blockade of Tripoli Harbor, primarily providing gunfire support in the bombardment of Tripoli’s shore batteries, and, after hostilities with the Barbary pirates came to a close, spent months observing the French and Royal Navy operations in the Napoleonic Wars. The true test of Constitution’s mettle, however, came in the War of 1812, in which she would win worldwide fame, the adoration of the American public, and her everlasting nickname “Old Ironsides.” (Gardiner, 31-32)

The USS Constitution’s first action of the War of 1812 was noteworthy, though far from the glorious victory over a British warship that she was looking for. On July 5, 1812, less than a month after Congress declared war on Great Britain, the Constitution sailed from Annapolis under the command of Captain Isaac Hull. She was supposed to link up with Commodore John Rodgers’ naval squadron, but unluckily, on July 18 she ran into “a strong British squadron off the Jersey coast under Captain Philip Broke.” (35) This squadron consisted of the 38-gun frigate HMS Shannon, the 64-gun ship of the line HMS Africa, the 32-gun frigate HMS Aeolus, the 36-gun frigate HMS Belvidera, and finally, the 38-gun frigate HMS Guerriere.

Constitution's escape from the British squadron after a chase of sixty hours, 1815 engraving by William Hoogland (Library of Congress--their summary: "Print shows rowboats towing the USS Constitution away from the British fleet as the British frigate Belvidera fires its cannons. In the background, rowboats tow the British frigate Shannon. Other ships in the squadron are HMS Africa, HMS Aeolus, and HMS Guerriere.")

The Constitution immediately fled from the hotly pursuing squadron, beginning what eventually turned into an epic three-day struggle to evade capture by the persistent British warships. Over the next three days the Constitution’s captain and crew employed a myriad of methods in their attempt to outrun the pursuing squadron; first, Hull resorted to boats to tow the Constitution, but the British quickly followed suit. Many of the more distant or slower ships even sent their boats to assist the nearest frigate, the Shannon. Eventually, both sides “turned to the backbreaking expedient of kedging – carrying small anchors ahead in the boats, and then heaving in on the capstan (35).” Although they occasionally crept closer from time to time, even to the point that they were able to fire off a few shots at the elusive American frigate, despite their best efforts, the British pursuers simply could not close the gap on the Constitution. By July 19, “in gradually rising winds the Constitution was gaining;” on July 20, “Captain Hull set his crew to wet the sails, to retain more wind, and by the middle of the morning the American frigate was so far ahead that the British squadron gave up the chase and returned to their blockade station off New York.” (36-37) Hull, unable to keep his rendezvous with Commodore John Rodgers’ force, decided to head for Boston, relieved to have escaped his British pursuers.

Chase of the Constitution, July 1812, by Anton Otto Fischer (u.S. Navy Art Collection)

Despite the fact that the Constitution’s escape was hardly the glorious naval victory that the American public so desperately desired, it was an impressive showcase of both the seaworthy capabilities of the American frigates as well as the skills and seamanship of U.S. naval officers and sailors. Escaping five warships of the Royal Navy was no small feat, and this fortunate escape was only the beginning of the USS Constitution’s illustrious wartime service in the War of 1812, in which both she and many other ships in the USN would truly legitimize their own branch of service as well as show that the United States was a truly formidable sea power worthy of combating the most powerful naval opponents of the nineteenth century. (Gardiner, 35-37)

Read what came next for the USS Constitution…

Source Cited:
Robert Gardiner, The Naval War of 1812 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1998), 11-37.