THE SOMERS MUTINY OF 1842 Angus Ephraim Goldberg A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St. Andrews 2000 Full metadata for this item is available in Research@StAndrews:FullText at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/2695 This item is protected by original copyright The Somers Mutiny of 1842 By Angus Ephraim Goldberg A Thesis Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of History of the University of St. Andrews August 1999 Declarations (i) I, Angus Ephraim Goldberg, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 100,000 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher Signature of candidate (ii) I was admitted as a research student in August 1995, and a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in September 1995; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St. Andrews between 1995 and 1999. Dat~ Signature of candidate (iii) I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of St. Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree. Date Signature of Supervisor tC Restrictions A.) Unrestricted In submitting this thesis to the University of St. Andrews I understand that I am giving permission for it to be made available for use i~; in accordance with the regulations of the Uniy~rsity Library for the time I.." , being in force, subject to any copyright vested in the work not being affected thereby. I also understand that the title and abstract will be published, and that a copy of the work may be made and supplied to any bona fide library or research worker. Date ~\ \0.,1'\ ( Signature of candida Abstract This dissertation presents an analysis of the Somers mutiny of 1842 that goes beyond the simple narratives offered by previous studies of the cruise. The mutiny is examined within the context of contemporary American politics and social reform, particularly as they related to naval affairs. These emphases clarify the rationale behind the cruise of the Somers, and shed light upon the nature of her crew. The immediate physical environment of the brig is described in order to reveal the difficulties in its operation, and the destabilising effect that this had on both the functional and social worlds of the vessel. The social environment on board is further defined by examining the daily progress of the cruise with reference to ante1>ellum naval life and practice. ; When so combined, these factors clarify the c5fficers' perception of the mutiny threat, and go far to explain their actions throughout the crisis. Finally, the dissertation examines the controversy that arose after the Somers returned to the United States. In particular, the military courts convened to investigate the mutiny are subjected to critical analysis since they are fully part of the events that they purported to explain, and because their proceedings remain the primary source material for reconstructing the cruise it is necessary to identify their biases. To conclude, the societal lessons of the Somers mutiny are explored, and an alternative reading of the event is posed. This work is dedicated to my parents, who have always supported me in my endeavours, and indulged me in my pursuits. Contents: Acknowledgements VI Introduction 1 Chapter 1: The Upshur Vision: Naval Expansion and Reform 11 Chapter 2: Naval Education: Apprentices and Midshipmen 60 Chapter 3: The Brig-of-War Somers: The Vessel and Her Crew 106 Chapter 4: The Second Cruise: To the African Station 152 Chapter 5: The Mutiny: Crisis and Executions 205 Chapter 6: Courts-Martial: The Somers Mutiny Affair 264 Conclusion: An Alternative Reading 331 Figures 337 Photographic Credits 348 Bibliography 349 VI Acknowledgements In the course of writing this dissertation I have accumulated many debts. First, I must thank my immediate family for their support over the years. My parents, I have already mentioned, so to be fair, Esther, Duncan, Tony, Preston, and Dorothy, all of you have my love and affection. From family to faculty and academic inspiration. I must express my profound thanks and respect to Dr. Steve Spackman. This dissertation could not have arrived safely in harbour without his guidance, patience, and understanding. More to the point, he has made me the historian that I have become, and given me an appreciation of my nation's past that I will retain and develop throughout my life. Thanks must also be expressed to the Scottish Institute of Maritime Studies who took this landsman on board four years ago, and first showed him the ropes. I would also like to express my respect to Professor Chester Neudling, who years ago restored my faith in my own academic aptitude, and encouraged me to continue my studies. Dr. Julian Crowe made possible my analysis of enlistments in the Navy through his assistance with my database. Lisa Ford provided thoughtful editorial comments, and sound proof-reading. The archivists and librarians of the United States National Archives, the Navy Department Library, the New York Historical Society, and the Vll Pennsylvania Historical Society, gave me invaluable help in seeing this project through to its completion. From faculty to friends, and I do not know that I can do justice to you all. Charles Still, who does not even know that I have written this dissertation, deserves special mention for being the person who introduced me to the Philip Spencer story when I joined Chi Psi Fraternity in the autumn of 1989. For that matter, all the Lodge brothers of Alpha Alpha merit acknowledgement, but in particular, I would like to thank Mark Puzella, for our ongoing seminar and friendship. Special thanks must also be given to my close friends in New York. Amy McCulloch, Keith Walter, Amy Barrett, Tom Santiago, and Josh Lieberson. All very dear to me, you made possible my research in the city. And to those scattered few outside of New York, appreciation to you all, but especially to Mary Liz Williamson, whose friendship grew as I worked on this project. My friends in St. Andrews were invaluable in carrying me through the process. Pride of place goes to John Cunningham Davis, who has remained my friend throughout this process. Mike Wesley, who inspired me with his achievement my first year here, deserves next mention. Corinna Peniston-Bird and Clare White (who perhaps more than anyone understands) helped keep me on track, and offered kind words and support. To Fenton Iddins, Aline Hill, and the other unexpected late arrivals of coffee and conversation, thanks to you all. Since so much of our time was spent in concert, my thanks are offered to you in the same Vlll veIn. Nadia Afzal, however, deserves special mention, since I probably would not have met any of you but for her. Moreover, her generosity with her printer in times of crisis was crucial. 1 Introduction On December 1, 1842, three men were hanged for the crime of mutiny on board the U.S. Brig-of-War Somers. The brig itself was a school-ship, sailed almost entirely by apprentices between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one. At the time of the executions, the vessel was returning to the United States from the African coast. Among the hanged was a midshipman named Philip Spencer. He is remembered as the only officer in the history of the United States Navy to have been executed for mutiny. The others executed were both senior members of the crew. Samuel Cromwell was the boatswain's mate, and Elisha Small had been until recently, the quartennaster. The three men had been imprisoned for much of the week prior to their executions. Over the course of four days, the brig's officers became increasingly convinced that both their command of the vessel and their very lives were in danger. Certain of imminent revolt, the commander, Alexander Slidell MacKenzie, convened an emergency council of officers to determine a course of action. After two days' deliberation, it was decided that the safety of the vessel required the executions. Once the decision was reached it was carried out without delay. The condemned men were infonned of their fate just ten minutes before they were to die. At no time had they been made aware of the councilor been allowed to speak before it. The executions were carried out, and the brig continued its homeward journey. After a brief stop at St. Thomas in the Danish West Indies, the Somers returned to New York City. Upon her arrival, the 2 officers were called to justify their actions before a court of inquiry, which in turn was followed by the commander's court-martial. Throughout these trials, the officers faced the implacable hostility of Spencer's father, who was serving in the cabinet of President John Tyler. This bitter controversy in the courts of law and public opinion came to be known as the Somers Mutiny Affair. Although the Somers transfixed the nation for a brief time, it was quickly forgotten. Indeed, the only sustained tradition of interest in it has been maintained by Chi Psi fraternity, a secret society founded by Philip Spencer the year before he was entered in the Navy. Academic scholarship, however, did not address the Somers for some fifty years.