The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

The U. S. Frigate General Pike A Design & Operational History by Gary M. Gibson

“A most beautiful ship – what an elegant command…”1

Introduction ...... 2 Origin...... 2 Design ...... 4 Construction ...... 8 Armament ...... 15 Manning...... 20 Night Fight ...... 26 Off the Genesee ...... 28 The Burlington Races ...... 30 Consolation Prize ...... 33 On the St. Lawrence ...... 35 Winter 1813-1814 ...... 37 A Commanding Problem ...... 39 A New Crew ...... 40 Operations in 1814 ...... 43 Winter 1814-1815 ...... 46 Post-War ...... 48 Commanding Officers ...... 51 Charles Ware and the General Pike ...... 52 Acknowledgements ...... 53 Reference Abbreviations ...... 54

1Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 4 July 1813, Malcomson, Robert, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.45. The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Introduction By July 1813, with the War of 1812 over a year old, there was as yet no naval battle on Lake Ontario. The navy yards at Sackets Harbor, New York and Kingston, Upper Canada, however, were busily engaged in a war of ship carpenters as each side tried to out-build the other and obtain enough naval force to control the lake. For the American naval commander on the Great Lakes, Commodore Isaac Chauncey, the latest effort on the part of master shipwright Henry Eckford, the 28-gun frigate General Pike, would be ready for sea that month. When she sailed, the General Pike was the most powerful warship on Lake Ontario and would remain so until the spring of 1814. Even after Eckford built more powerful warships in 1814, the General Pike remained a major component of Chauncey’s squadron until the end of the war.

Origin On 16 August 1812 any hope the United States had for quickly conquering Upper Canada and thereby winning the War of 1812 ended with the surrender of Brigadier General William Hull’s army at Detroit. When word of that disaster reached Washington, President James Madison now wanted the United States to obtain naval superiority on the Great Lakes, a goal he had disregarded in the past as too expensive and unnecessary. On 31 August 1812, Captain Isaac Chauncey, the commandant of the New York Navy Yard, was appointed commodore and commander-in-chief of all United States naval forces on the Great Lakes. He received orders from the president to use all his resources to obtain and maintain control of those lakes, particularly Ontario and Erie, as fast as possible.2 At the time he received those orders, his title was almost the only resource he had. The new commodore’s total naval force consisted of one 18-gun brig on Lake Ontario, the Oneida, based at Sackets Harbor, New York. The other Great Lakes had no American warships at all. Opposing him on the lakes was the Provincial Marine, a branch of the British Quartermaster General’s department. Their major vessel on Lake Ontario, the 20-gun Royal George, was built at Kingston, Upper Canada in 1809 in response to the United States building the Oneida. The British force also included the older 14-gun Earl of Moira and two small armed schooners. in September 1812, Chauncey’s force on Lake Ontario was outnumbered four to one and outgunned three to one. Fortunately Chauncey had another resource available, New York City shipwright Henry Eckford, who had built the Oneida at Oswego, New York in 1809. Taking advantage of the authority granted to him by the president and Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton: In addition to the public vessels now on the Lakes — you are at liberty to purchase, hire or build, in your discretion, such others and of such form & armament, as may in your opinion be necessary.3 Chauncey dispatched Henry Eckford to Sackets Harbor where, in the fall of 1812, he and Eckford purchased and armed nine small American merchant schooners. At the same time Eckford’s workmen built and launched the 24-gun corvette Madison in only 45 days, a remarkably short time for work done in what was essentially a frontier village.4

2 Charles W. Goldsborough to Isaac Chauncey, 31 August 1812, SNLSC, T829 roll 175 pp.325-326. 3 Charles W. Goldsborough to Isaac Chauncey, 31 August 1812, SNLSC, T829 roll 175 pp.325-326. 4 Isaac Chauncey to Paul Hamilton, 26 November 1812, SNLRC, 1812 vol 3 item 192, M125 roll 25.

Page 2 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

When Chauncey arrived at Sackets Harbor in early October 1812 he found the Madison’s construction well underway. With no first hand experience with the British on the lake, Chauncey believed that the Madison alone might not be sufficient to allow him to wrest command of Lake Ontario from the Provincial Marine. Therefore he reported to Secretary Hamilton that I have ordered the materials for another [ship] of the same description to be prepared, which will be built this winter.5 Although the Madison would not be ready for service until the following spring, that fall Chauncey used the Oneida and six of the armed merchant schooners to drive the combat ineffective Provincial Marine off the lake. As winter closed the sailing season on Lake Ontario, Commodore Chauncey changed his mind about building a second Madison: I think myself now so completely master of this lake that any addition to my force would be useless unless the enemy should add to his, which I think out of his power to do this winter.6 Chauncey was wrong. On 11 December 1812, the man supervising the Provincial Marine, Acting Deputy Quartermaster General Andrew Gray, wrote Governor General Sir George Prevost from York, Upper Canada (now the City of Toronto) recommending that the British Build so as to keep pace with the enemy. For this purpose, I should submit that a ship corvette, mounting 30, 32 pr carronades, should be laid down at York, and two vessels of the class of the Royal George built, one at Kingston and the other at Amherstburg.7 Prevost approved of Gray’s plan and informed him that Thomas Plucknett, “an experienced Officer in the Kings Naval Yards” and 120 shipwrights and carpenters were already on their way to Kingston and York to build the ships on Lake Ontario.8 The British plan included building the 22-gun Wolfe at Kingston and the 30-gun Sir Isaac Brock at York, both ships to be ready for service in the spring of 1813. When complete the British force would be superior to that of the Americans even after the addition of the Madison. Chauncey’s complacency lasted until mid-January 1813 when he heard that the British did, indeed, have the “power” to build additional warships that winter. On 20 January he reported this unpleasant intelligence to the Navy Department: They are building a ship at Kingston which they think is to rate 36 guns. She is 120 feet keel and 36 feet beam, and is to be launched early in April: they are also building two other vessels at York; their size they do not know, but think one of them is to be a frigate.9 While Chauncey did overestimate the size and the number of warships being built by the British the reality was almost as bad. He knew he had to respond quickly or any hope of his maintaining naval superiority on Lake Ontario in 1813 would vanish. Based on his previous authority to build such ships as he believed he needed, Chauncey informed the Navy Department that “I have deemed it my duty to provide materials to build another ship.”10 Here Chauncey was testing the waters. Navy Secretary Paul Hamilton, who had granted him that authority, left office in December 1812 and was replaced by William Jones. Jones, who was much

5 Isaac Chauncey to Paul Hamilton, 8 October 1812, SNLRC, 1812 vol 3 item 106, M125 roll 25. 6 Isaac Chauncey to Paul Hamilton, 17 November 1812, SNLRC, 1812 vol 3 item 183, M125 roll 25. 7 Andrew Gray to George Prevost, 11 December 1812, NAC, RG8, C.728, pp.119-124, C-3243. 8 George Prevost to Andrew Gray, 18 December 1812, NAC, RG8, C.728, pp.125-134, C-3243. 9 Isaac Chauncey to Secretary of the Navy, 20 January 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 1 item 25, M125 roll 26. 10 Isaac Chauncey to Secretary of the Navy, 20 January 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 1 item 25, M125 roll 26.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 3 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 more experienced than Hamilton when it came to nautical matters, might not continue Chauncey’s “unlimited” authority.11 Chauncey need not have worried. Secretary Jones was perfectly in line with the president’s program and he quickly reconfirmed Chauncey’s authority: You are authorized to build at Sackets harbor another corvette of such dimensions as you may deem proper; Indeed you are to consider the absolute superiority on all the lakes as the only limit to your authority.12 In fact, Jones had done so even before he received Chauncey’s original letter stating the need for an additional warship on Lake Ontario. You will perceive by the enclosed duplicate that I had anticipated your views of constructing another ship at Sacketts harbor.13 Jones’ agreement that an additional warship was needed was completely in line with President Madison’s views. Madison was determined to obtain and maintain naval superiority on the lakes as he informed Major General Henry Dearborn in early February 1813: “The command of those waters is the hinge on which the war will essentially turn.” Concern for the cost of the shipbuilding required was no longer an issue for Madison, as he told Dearborn: If they [the British] build two ships, we should build four. If they build thirty or 40 gun ships, we should build them of 50 or 60 guns.14 With the authority issue settled, Chauncey and Eckford were free to design the new ship. Meanwhile, the British at Kingston were doing their best to remain aware of what Chauncey was doing. Throughout the war the British made good use of spies and informants to keep abreast of the shipbuilding efforts at Sackets Harbor. In mid-March 1813, over three weeks before the new warship was actually laid down, the British had a report that the United States was considering building a new vessel “of the class of the Oneida.”15 In this case, however, they underestimated the American plan.

Design Given what was known of the British ship building plan that winter, Chauncey and Eckford knew that their new ship would have to:  Be armed with heavy cannon and not carronades, as on the Oneida and Madison, to be able to engage the British effectively at a distance. The British lake warships themselves were armed primarily with carronades.  Be significantly larger than the Madison to allow room for a heavy armament to outgun the strongest new British ship and to support the weight of that armament.

11 As part of his appointment letter, Chauncey received “unlimited authority to provide the requisite means to carry into effect the object of these instructions;” Charles W. Goldsborough to Isaac Chauncey, 31 August 1812, SNLSC, T829 roll 175 pp.325-327. 12 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 27 January 1813, SNLSO, vol 10 pp.231-232, M149 roll 10. 13 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 2 February 1813, SNLSO, vol 10 p.242, M149 roll 10. 14 James Madison to Henry Dearborn, 6 February 1813 marked “private,” PJM-PS, vol 5 p.646. 15 Comparative Statement of the British and American Squadrons on the Lakes so far as that of the Enemy can be ascertained, 13 March 1813, NAC, RG8, C.729 pp.129-131, C3243.

Page 4 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

 Be ready for service as soon as possible, no later than early June 1813 to match the British shipbuilding program. Unfortunately, the contemporary record does not give a complete picture of Eckford’s design. Arthur Sinclair, the first captain of the new frigate, reported she was three feet longer and one foot wider than the Atlantic frigate Essex.16 Some of the contemporary and later details of the Essex are given in Table 1.

Hackett/Briggs Fox Ship’s Data DANFS Takakjian Canney Silverstone 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Essex 1799 1808 1945 1969 1990 2001 2001 Length of Gun deck (feet) 141 141 141.4 140 140 140 141.75 Keel for tonnage (feet) 118 118 118 118 118 Beam (feet) 37 37 37.67 31 37.5 37 37 Depth of Hold (feet) 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 Tonnage NA 850.2 850 850 850.2 850 850 Table 1 – Reported Dimensions of the Frigate Essex As with the Essex, the contemporary and later specifications of the new frigate, soon to be named General Pike, are shown in Table 2. Chauncey Sinclair Canney Silverstone Malcomson General Pike 1813-1424 181325 200126 200127 200128 Length (Gun deck) 142 140+3=143 145 145 142 Beam 37+1=38 37 37 38.5

16 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 4 July 1813, Malcomson, Robert, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.45. 17 Portia Takakjian, The 32-Gun Frigate Essex (London UK: Conway Maritime Press, 1990) p.8. 18 Portia Takakjian, The 32-Gun Frigate Essex (London UK: Conway Maritime Press, 1990) p.8. 19 Register of Officer Personnel United States Navy and Marine Corps and Ships’ Data 1801-1807, a supplement to Naval Documents related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1945) p.71. 20 Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Vol II (Washington: Government Printing Office, repr. with corrections 1969) p.366. 21 Portia Takakjian, The 32-Gun Frigate Essex (London UK: Conway Maritime Press, 1990) p.8. 22 Donald L. Canney, Sailing Warships of the U. S. Navy (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2001) p.199. 23 Paul H. Silverstone, The Sailing Navy 1775-1854 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2001) p.34. 24 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4; A Return of Vessels of War belonging to the United States upon Lake Ontario exhibiting their force in Guns and Men, 10 June 1813, AF, M625 roll 76 frames 201-203; A View of the Force of the Squadron on Lake Ontario under the Command of Commodore Isaac Chauncey exhibiting the number of guns and caliber each ship can fight on a broadside, 15 July 1814, AF, M625 roll 77 frames 25-27. 25 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 4 July 1813, Malcomson, Robert, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.45. 26 Donald L. Canney, Sailing Warships of the U. S. Navy (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2001) p.203. 27 Paul H. Silverstone, The Sailing Navy 1775-1854 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2001) p.67. 28 Robert Malcomson, Warships of the Great Lakes 1754-1834 (London UK: Chatham Publishing, 2001) p.79.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 5 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Chauncey Sinclair Canney Silverstone Malcomson General Pike 1813-1424 181325 200126 200127 200128 Depth of Hold 15 15 Tonnage 900 < 1,000 875 875 900 Table 2 – Reported Dimensions of the Frigate General Pike Therefore the details shown in Table 3 are believed to be as accurate as the contemporary reports from Chauncey and Sinclair allow after making reference to the dimensions of the Essex where required. Length on gun deck 142 feet Length from bow to fore mast29 25 feet Length from fore mast to main mast 65 feet Length from main mast to mizzen mast 30 feet Length from mizzen mast to stern 22 feet Masts bury from gunwale to keelson 20 feet Length of keel for tonnage 118 feet 5 inches Beam 38 feet Gun ports (plus two pivot guns on 28 forecastle and quarterdeck platforms)30 Tonnage 900 Table 3 – Dimensions of the Frigate General Pike The tonnage value is derived from the standard “Builder’s Old Measurement” formula in use at the time and is not the more modern amount of water displaced by the ship’s hull. The length of the keel is multiplied by the square of the beam, both in feet, and the product divided by 190 to obtain an estimate of the amount of cargo a vessel could carry in tons.31 Although not an accurate value for a merchant ship and meaningless for a cargo-less warship, the formula had the benefit of allowing the sizes of different warships to be easily compared as well as to be able to calculate the missing measurement if the two others are known. At the time, the mast and spar dimensions for a frigate of this size were similar in most navies. In this case, Chauncey ordered that the sails and rigging be made at New York City to conform to the specifications given in Table 4. The masts and spars themselves would be made by Henry Eckford’s carpenters at Sackets Harbor. Mast Length Yard Length Fore Mast 77 feet Fore Yard 68 feet Fore Topmast 45 feet Fore Topsail Yard 49 feet Fore Topgallant Mast 23 feet Fore Topgallant Yard 36 feet Fore Royal Yard 25 feet Main Mast 85 feet Main Yard 75 feet Main Topmast 50 feet Topsail Yard 54 feet Main Topgallant Mast 25 feet Topgallant Yard 36 feet Main Royal Yard 25 feet

29 The distances between masts and the distance from gunwale to keelson are from Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4. 30 See the description of the General Pike’s Armament, below. 31 The British used the same formula but divided by 188, not 190.

Page 6 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Mast Length Yard Length Mizzen Cross Jack Yard 54 feet Mizzen Topmast 40 feet Mizzen Topsail Yard 38 feet Mizzen Topgallant Mast 21 feet Mizzen Topgallant Yard 28 feet Mizzen Royal Yard 19 feet Spanker 54 feet Bowsprit Outboard 34 feet Jib Boom 38 feet Flying Jib Boom 40 feet Table 4 – Masts and Spars Needed by the General Pike 32 A comparison between the mast and spar lengths shown in Table 4 and those of the Atlantic frigate Essex shows that the Essex’s masts were almost the same length as the General Pike but the Essex’s yards were slightly longer, confirming that the two warships were close to the same size. For example the Essex’s main mast was 85 feet long, the same as the General Pike, but her main yard was five feet longer.33 The rigging ordered from New York included the cables shown in Table 5. Description Type Size Length 5 Cables 18 inch 720 feet 1 Cable 10 inch 720 feet 1 Hawser 14 inch 720 feet 1 Hawser 5 inch 720 feet 1 Fore stay cable 4 strand 12½ inch 90 feet 1 Fore preventer stay cable 4 strand 9½ inch 90 feet 1 Main stay cable 4 strand 14 inch 144 feet 1 Main preventer stay cable 4 strand 11 inch 144 feet 1 Mizzen stay cable 4 strand 8 inch 84 feet 1 Mizzen stay sail stay 4 strand 6 inch 90 feet 1 Fore top mizzen stay 4 strand 7 inch 168 feet cable 1 Fore top stay sail stay 4 strand 6 inch 168 feet 1 Main top mast stay cable 4 strand 7 inch 168 feet 1 Main stay sail stay cable 4 strand 5½ inch 138 feet 1 Mizzen top mast stay 4 strand 5½ inch 120 feet cable Fore rigging cable 8 inch 816 feet Main rigging cable 8 inch 816 feet Mizzen rigging cable 6 inch 480 feet Table 5 – Cables Needed by the General Pike 34 Along with the cables, a large amount of rope of various sizes was needed to complete the rigging for the General Pike and for other purposes. These are shown in Table 6. Size Length Size Length 7 inch 360 feet 3½ inch 6,780 feet 6½ inch 720 feet 3 inch 18,600 feet 6 inch 1,200 feet 2½ inch 15,000 feet

32 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4. 33 Portia Takakjian, The 32-Gun Frigate Essex (London UK: Conway Maritime Press, 1990) p.15/ 34 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 7 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Size Length Size Length 5½ inch 4,920 feet 2 inch 15,000 feet 5 inch 1,320 feet 1½ inch 15,000 feet 4½ inch 1,300 feet 1 inch 15,000 feet 4 inch 2,880 feet Table 6 – Rope Needed for the General Pike 35 Chauncey also knew that the frigate’s standing rigging, used to support the masts, would be needed first and he ordered Bullus to Send the rope for the standing rigging and stays up first so that we can fit it.36 Finally many other items would be needed to complete the new frigate. Chauncey ordered those shown in Table 7 from New York City at the same time he ordered the cables and rope. Description Amount Description Amount Seizing stuff 9,000 feet Old canvas 500 yards Housing 10 coils Tar 10 barrels Marline 10 coils One 10-inch messenger 240 feet Hambro line 10 coils One 7- inch hawser 72 feet for buoy ropes 4-Yarn spun yarn 10 coils Four anchors 3,696 lbs each 3-Yarn spun yarn 20 coils One anchor 896 lbs 2-Yarn spun yarn 20 coils Two anchors 448 lbs each Whipping twine 20 hanks Table 7 –Items Needed for the General Pike 37

Construction The new frigate was laid down at Sackets Harbor on 8 April 1813, two days after the launch of the dispatch schooner Lady of the Lake from the same location.38 The building site was on the waterfront in front of the Augustus Sacket house, occupied at the time by Sailing Master William Vaughan and his wife Abigail.39 We this day laid the keel of the ship to be built at this place and as all her frames are ready to raise, I calculate that she will certainly be launched by the first of June.40 It is clear from Chauncey’s statement that Eckford’s men started work on the new frigate some days earlier, most likely on 1 March 1813, as it would have taken at least a week to locate, cut, haul and shape the timber needed for the frames.41

35 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4. 36 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4. 37 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4. 38 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones, 6 April 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 2 item 135, M125 roll 27. 39 At the time this is written this building is the Sackets Harbor Visitor’s Center. 40 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones, 8 April 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 2 item 152, M125 roll 27. 41 The 1 March 1813 date is based on a notation on an invoice for labor to build the General Pike dated 21 July 1813 which covered a period starting on 1 March 1813, NAUS, RG217, Records of the Accounting Officers of the Treasury, Fourth Auditor Settled Accounts, Alphabetic Series, Chauncey.

Page 8 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

However, U. S. Army Captain John Walworth, Sixth Infantry, wrote from Sackets Harbor to his father-in-law Colonel Jonas Simonds two days earlier that construction had already begun and that the new vessel would have a much heavier armament than was the case: The keel of a 44 [gun ship] is just laid and the timber principally fitted ready to put together, it is said it will be launched in 35 days and ready for service in fifty days.42 The armament discrepancy is understandable as Walworth was probably reporting what he heard around the village. The earlier date for laying down the keel, however, is puzzling. One possible explanation is that he started and dated his letter on 6 April but did not finish it until after 8 April when the keel was laid. As the mail at that time left Sackets Harbor only twice a week, adding to a letter over several days was not uncommon. Two weeks later Walworth wrote that construction was proceeding very rapidly: The large frigate that is building at this place is nearly raised and will be ready for service in a very short time.43 On 23 April Isaac Chauncey confirmed that Eckford and his workmen were making great progress. Despite this vessel being by far the largest yet built on Lake Ontario, Chauncey still expected her to be launched and ready for service in June 1813. The ship of which we laid the keel on the 8th inst has all her frames up and we have begun to plank her, and from present appearances we shall be able to launch her the first week in June.44 Two weeks earlier Chauncey anticipated a launch date at the end of May. Now it could be as late as 7 June. Was this due to simple caution on Chauncey’s part or was there some unrecorded difficulty encountered during construction? Available records do not say. Three weeks later Chauncey returned to Sackets Harbor after the successful American raid on York where the British themselves burned their new 30-gun Sir Isaac Brock on the stocks. There he wrote to Major General Henry Dearborn at Niagara informing Dearborn that his forthcoming absence to support the American attack on Fort George would leave Sackets Harbor and his new ship very vulnerable to a British attack: The new ship here is in a state that she might be easily burned.45 Future developments proved that his concern was well justified. Nevertheless, four days later and shortly before he sailed to Niagara in the Madison, Chauncey reported to Secretary Jones that the frigate would be launched in less than two weeks: The ship building at this place is completely planked and sealed with her beams in and more than half caulked, and will be ready to be launched by the first of June.46 The frigate’s expected launch date was now back to what it was six weeks before. If there was a problem delaying construction it was overcome. Chauncey was still worried that his squadron’s absence would leave the new frigate dangerously exposed to an attack by the British. Dividing his force, he left two of the armed merchant

42 John Walworth to Jonas Simonds, 6 April 1814, NAC, MG24 F16, Jonas Simonds Papers. The “44” in the letter refers to the class of frigate, not the number of guns on board. The U. S. Frigate Constitution, a much larger vessel than the General Pike, was classed as a “44” though it carried over 50 guns. 43 John Walworth to Jonas Simonds, 19 April 1814, NAC, MG24 F16, Jonas Simonds Papers. 44 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #10, 23 April 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 3 item 39, M125 roll 28. 45 Isaac Chauncey to Henry Dearborn, 16 May 1813, CLB 4. 46 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #26, 20 May 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 3 item 155, M125 roll 28.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 9 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 schooners, the Fair American and Pert, at Sackets Harbor under the command of his younger brother, Lieutenant Ichabod Wolcott Chauncey, who was called Wolcott. Chauncey told his brother that If the enemy should come out and make any movements towards this place you will immediately return to port, moor your vessels inside the bar and defend the new ship to the last extremity. … If this place should be attacked, let the defence of the new ship be such, as to do yourself credit and silence clamour.47 Meanwhile, the shipbuilding effort at Sackets Harbor did not go unnoticed at Kingston, where the Provincial Marine’s vessels were now under the control of the Royal Navy, commanded by Commodore Sir James Lucas Yeo. As Yeo reported to Governor General Sir George Prevost, They [the Americans] have also a ship of thirty and a brig of eighteen guns nearly ready for launching at Sacketts harbour.48 This was, of course, an over-estimate as only the new frigate was being built at Sackets Harbor. Nevertheless, the British decided to raid Sackets Harbor with a scratch force of troops from various regiments to destroy the ship before it could be launched. The British arrived on 28 May 1813 and attacked the next morning. The attack failed and the British, who suffered about 30% casualties in the effort, retired to their ships and returned to Kingston. The same day the British attacked, with Chauncey and the rest of his squadron still at Niagara, Major General Henry Dearborn acknowledged Chauncey’s fears for the safety of Sackets Harbor in a letter to Secretary of War John Armstrong: He [Chauncey] is very anxious for his fleet to return to Sackets Harbor for until his other ship is fitted it is not certain, that he can continue in command of Lake Ontario.49 Nevertheless, Chauncey agreed to remain at Niagara for some time after the Americans captured Fort George at the request of General Dearborn. Dearborn wanted naval support for his subsequent operations against the British on the Niagara peninsula. When Chauncey learned of the British attack he changed his mind, quickly abandoned Dearborn and his army to their fate and returned to Sackets Harbor with his squadron, arriving on 1 June. There he received an order from Secretary Jones: As a tribute to the memory of General Pike the president wishes the new ship to be called by that name.50 Brigadier General Zebulon Montgomery Pike had been killed leading his brigade during the attack on York the previous April. Fortunately the vessels at Sackets Harbor survived the British attack intact: The new ship & the “Duke of Gloucester” taken at York are safe.51 Since the battle, numerous writings have the shipyard, and often the new frigate itself, being set on fire.52 Accounts at the time conclusively contradict these statements. The General Pike survived completely unharmed.

47 Isaac Chauncey to Wolcott Chauncey, 20 May 1813, CLB 4. 48 James Lucas Yeo to John Wilson Croker #3, 26 May 1813, NAUK, ADM 1/2736 pp.80-83, roll B-2941. 49 Henry Dearborn to John Armstrong, 29 May 1813, SWLRR, item D-136 Encl(7), M221 roll 52. 50 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey #21, 31 May 1813, SNPLB, pp.26-28, T829 roll 453. 51 Henry Dearborn to John Armstrong, 2 June 1813, SWLRR, item D-138½ (7), M221 roll 52.

Page 10 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

The same, however, could not be said for most of the items captured from the British at York and the sails, rigging and other naval stores needed to complete the General Pike. Fearing the British were close to victory, the defenders set the storehouses on Navy Point containing these items on fire.53 They were a total loss, as Chauncey reported to Secretary Jones: The buildings were of no value they however contained a part of the stores, for the new ship and nearly all the property brought from York — the loss of the canvass is a serious inconvenience as the sail makers must remain idle, until I can replace it from New York- I shall loose no time in replacing all the stores lost by this accident.54 Chauncey informed his subordinate on Lake Erie, Master Commandant Oliver Hazard Perry, of this loss, which was important as Chauncey planned to travel to Lake Erie to see for himself how Perry’s efforts were proceeding and to help him if necessary. Although our ship has been preserved here we have lost all the stores and sails by the burning of the barracks. I shall therefore be detained until I can replace them from New York which I have made arrangements for doing. We shall launch about the 10th and I hope to have her ready by the first of July.55 Now Chauncey’s trip would not just be delayed, it would never occur and Perry was on his own. Once again Chauncey changed the Pike’s planned launch date, this time perhaps due to the destruction and disorganization caused by the British attack, the fires and the lost stores. However, if Chauncey had anticipated a 1 June launch date, the General Pike would have been only three days away from being ready for that event when the British attacked. It seems unlikely that something major but not yet done to the hull would have been incomplete on 29 May. Something apparently caused another nine days’ launch delay, but what? Perhaps it was something as simple as many of Eckford’s workmen fleeing Sackets Harbor to escape the British attack and taking some time to return. Records found so far do not say. To replace what was lost in the flames, Chauncey wrote to Navy Agent John Bullus at New York City ordering him to send what was needed on to Sackets Harbor as fast as possible: We have had the misfortune to have all our stores burnt. You will be pleased to cause the articles mentioned in the enclosed indent to be procured as soon as possible. I shall send an officer to hurry them on. The canvas and twine for the sails for the new ship must be replaced: it was all burnt. The powder I am very much in want of. Lose no time in sending it forward.56

52 J. Mackay Hitsman, The Incredible War of 1812: A Military History, updated edition (Toronto: Robin Brass Studio, 1999, orig. 1965) p.149 (“set fire to the new ship”); John R. Elting, Amateurs to Arms: A Military History of the War of 1812 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1991) p.95 (“considerable damage to the shipyard”); Jon Latimer, 1812 War With America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007) p.142 (“fires to be set on the dockyard”); Mahon, John K., The War of 1812 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1972) p.146 (“the General Pike … had been ignited”). Other books, while not specifically stating there was no damage to the General Pike, do not exclude it either. The only book on the battle itself to date, Patrick A. Wilder, The Battle of Sackett’s Harbour (Baltimore: The Nautical & Aviation Publishing Co, 1994) pp- 114-115, is one of the very few that makes it clear that “the ship was safe.” 53 The General Pike’s building site was on the waterfront some distance across the harbor from the naval storehouses that were burned on Navy Point. For many years it was erroneously believed that the General Pike was built at the end of Navy Point which would have placed her in serious risk from the flames. 54 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #30, 2 June 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 4 item 8, M125 roll 29. 55 Isaac Chauncey to Oliver Hazard Perry, 3 June 1813, CLB 4. 56 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 3 June 1813, CLB 4.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 11 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Table 8 lists those stores Chauncey ordered from Bullus, most of which were “burnt by the late fire and wanted immediately.”57 Chauncey also wrote to the forwarding firm of Townsend, Bronson & Company at Oswego, emphasizing delivery speed and not caring too much what the cost of the transport might be: Be pleased to forward to this place without delay in boats or otherwise, all the guns, carriages, or other property belonging to the navy department of the U.S. that has arrived at Oswego or may hereafter arrive to your address. The rigging and guns I am very anxious for.58 Item Quantity Item Quantity Signal lanterns 30 12-Thread ratline 5 coils Magazine lanterns Two 9-Thread ratline 5 coils Junk for wadding 5 tons 3-Yarn spun yarn 10 coils Compasses Ten 2-Yarn spun yarn 10 coils Spy glasses Five Hamberline 2 coils 28 Second glasses Ten Marline 2 coils 14 Second glasses Ten Housline 2 coils ½ hour glasses 18 Muskets 100 Flannel or substitute 3,000 yards Pistols 100 Deep sea lines Six Cutlasses 150 Hand lines 20 Musket flints 6,000 Speltre 6 pounds Pistol flints 4,000 Scupper nails 50,000 Powder horns 80 Pump tacks 100,000 Cannon powder 30,000 pounds Horn for lanterns 300 pieces Musket or priming powder 5,000 pounds Signal halyards 6 coils Match rope 2,000 pounds Russia Duck 20 pieces Sperm candles 10 boxes No 6 Duck 10 pieces Copper nails 100 pounds Ravens 5 pieces Red bunting 10 yards Hand trumpets 100 White bunting 10 yards Deck scrapers 100 Blue bunting 10 yards Lead for ball One ton Yellow bunting 5 yards Bullet moulds – 10, 18 & Three Green bunting 2 yards 20 to the pound Tar 20 barrels Whipping twine 100 pounds Pitch 10 barrels Sewing twine 200 pounds Buck shot 2,000 pounds Sewing thread 10 pounds Patent lights 30 Spirits of turpentine 50 gallons White lead 2,000 pounds Putty 200 pounds Lamp black 200 pounds Lamp oil 50 gallons Black paint 500 pounds Cotton wick 6 pounds Yellow paint 200 pounds Binnacle lamps 18 Green paint 10 pounds Litherage for drying paint Venetian read paint 5 pounds Sheet lead One-half roll Paint oil 200 gallons American ensigns, jacks & Two pendants (broad) 18-Thread ratline 5 coils Cabin furniture, plain 15-Thread ratline 5 coils One galley complete that

57 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 5 June 1813, CLB 4. Items shown in italics were previously ordered from New York City for the General Pike on 20 March 1813, CLB 3. 58 Isaac Chauncey to Townsend, Bronson & Co., 5 June 1813, CLB 4.

Page 12 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Item Quantity Item Quantity can cook for 200 men Table 8 – Stores Ordered to Replace Those Burned at Sackets Harbor 59 Items in Italics had previously been ordered from New York City specifically for the General Pike 60 Finally, Chauncey wrote to General Dearborn at Niagara officially informing him of the loss and lamenting how much happier everyone would have been had the victory not been marred by the self-inflicted loss of the stores. It also warned Dearborn that he would not have naval support at Niagara until the General Pike was ready for sea: Our exultation would have been complete but for the circumstances of losing all our stores together with all those brought from York by the burning of the barracks … I shall remain here until I get the ship launched and a supply of stores from New York.61 In Washington, Secretary Jones reported the loss of the stores to President Madison with a bit of guarded optimism mixed with uncertainty: Nor is it possible to anticipate the consequences as it respects the equipment of the new ship. I know that a considerable quantity of important stores for that purpose are now on the way from New York and trust the loss in that respect will not be very serious.62 At Kingston, the British failure to destroy the General Pike at Sackets Harbor meant Commodore Yeo needed another warship built to oppose her. In a letter to Governor General Prevost, he asked that In consequence of the enemy having a large ship building in Sackets Harbour, and to counteract their growing force, that a ship of the enclosed dimensions may be built at this yard Length on Deck 136 feet Breadth moulded 36 feet This ship would be nearly the same size as the General Pike and equivalent to the Sir Isaac Brock, burned by the British themselves at York a month earlier. This was not the first such request Prevost had received. When Royal Navy Commander Robert Barclay arrived at Kingston two weeks before Yeo, he quickly realized the impact of the loss of the Sir Isaac Brock on the defense of Canada and asked Prevost to approve building a ship at Kingston “of the same force” using the shipwrights from York.63 Prevost did not approve either request. It would be October 1813 before Yeo received approval to build the 58 gun Prince Regent and the 42 gun Princess Charlotte. On 11 June 1813 Chauncey confessed to Secretary Jones that the General Pike would not be ready until mid-July, ”at least three weeks” later than he had planned for back in April. Even that schedule was conditional on the replacement supplies arriving in time: I shall use every exertion to have her got ready for service as soon as possible and I think that I shall be able to proceed with her upon the lake on or before the 15th of July, provided her stores and men arrive in time. The burning of the public stores here on the 29th ulto.[29 May] has been a serious misfortune independent of the loss; for the detention of the new ship in consequence will be at least three weeks longer than it otherwise would have been. We however must remedy the evil by

59 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 5 June 1813, CLB 4. 60 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 20 March 1813, CLB 3. 61 Isaac Chauncey to Henry Dearborn, 3 June 1813, CLB 4. 62 William Jones to James Madison, 6 June 1813, PJM-PS, vol 6 p.374. 63 Robert Barclay to Noah Freer, 9 May 1813, NAC, RG8, C.729, pp.183-192, roll C-3243.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 13 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

industry. I have infatuation that the canvass to replace the sails and canvass that was burnt, left Albany on the 8th., we may therefore look for it in about three or four days. A part of the guns has arrived at Oswego and other stores are coming on. I have a number of boats waiting at Oswego to receive the stores as they arrive, and officers stationed there to superintend their shipment.64 Chauncey’s news of the replacement supplies was not the result of information received but only of “infatuation,” hardly a way to reassure the reader of the validity of his schedule. Nevertheless, the following day the commodore had the satisfaction of reporting to Secretary Jones that The General Pike was launched this day at 12 o’clock without incident. I received your letter of the 31 ulto[31 May] directing what her name was to be a few hours before she was launched. I shall use every exertion in my power to fit her for service as soon as possible. 65 Characteristically, Chauncey then felt the need to justify the delay in her launch, even though he was still waiting for the stores necessary to finish the General Pike and consequently there was no time lost by that delay: The keel of the General Pike was laid on the 9th of April and she would have been launched on the 31st of May but for the circumstance of my being obliged to take Mr Eckford and 35 of the carpenters up to Niagara to fit the five vessels that lay at Black Rock. I however presume that no vessel of her tonnage and capacity has ever been built in less time, within the United States.66 Chauncey was correct in applauding the efforts of Eckford and his workmen. They had accomplished at Sackets Harbor in two months what usually took over a year on the Atlantic. The British at Kingston built warships quickly by Royal Navy standards, but that pace was still much slower than Henry Eckford’s. Throughout the war, Eckford built warship after warship at Sackets Harbor at a speed that astonished the British. In 1816, with the war over and relations between the two powers more amicable, the British remained so curious that they granted a foreman of shipwrights from the Kingston Dockyard, John Aldersley, leave to go to Sackets Harbor to investigate how the United States managed to build so many warships so quickly.67 A variety of wood was used to build the General Pike. In two invoices dated 26 June and 21 July 1813 Henry Eckford billed the Navy Department $17,620 for 124,000 board-feet of oak, cedar, spruce, ash and pine plus a quantity of “boards.” Another bill covered the 9,510 man-days of work performed by Eckford’s workmen in building and launching the frigate as well as boarding the workmen for 1,523 man-weeks. Eckford also billed the government for other expenses including 3,000 bushels of coal, 16,815 “spikes, braces and pintles” as well as cash for workmen’s tools and miscellaneous expenses. Based on these invoices the cost of building the General Pike was at least $45,000.68 This amount does not include the cost of the work done or the items bought after the Pike was launched nor the many items purchased by the navy agent at New York City, Dr. John Bullus, and forwarded by him to Sackets Harbor. These items included the frigate’s armament, cables, rope, anchors, sails, camboose, medical supplies, and cabin

64 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #38, 11 June 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 4 item 47, M125 roll 29. 65 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #40, 12 June 1813, SNLRC, 1813, vol 4 item 57, M125 roll 29. 66 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #40, 12 June 1813, SNLRC, 1813, vol 4 item 57, M125 roll 29. Here Chauncey claims the keel was laid on 9 April, not 8 April as he did at the time construction began, thereby shortening the General Pike’s keel to launch time by a day, probably just a memory mistake. 67 John Aldersley to William Fitz William Owen, NAUK, ADM 1/2265 p.376, NAC roll B-2786. 68 Vouchers from Henry Eckford for the purchase of timber dated 26 June and 21 July 1813, NAUS, RG217, Records of the Accounting Officers of the Treasury, Fourth Auditor Settled Accounts, Alphabetic Series, Chauncey. Many of Eckford’s invoices covered activities that were not broken down by vessel so this total is certainly incomplete but by how much it is impossible to say.

Page 14 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 furniture. The General Pike’s replacement sails were purchased from Windover & Hinton at New York City at a cost of $2,535.77.69 From the probable start of construction on 1 March 1813 until the General Pike was launched on 12 June 1813, Henry Eckford employed an average of 181 men building the frigate and they earned an average of $1.88 per day, considerably more than was usual at New York City or Boston.70 The cost to complete the frigate after she was launched and the size of that workforce is not yet known. By 8 July the General Pike had all her guns mounted, her lower masts and topmasts rigged and her sails nearly complete. Her cabin furniture, however, was still missing.71 Chauncey’s order to Navy Agent Bullus for those items was approved by Secretary Jones but not until 6 July 1813.72 It took some time for them to arrive from New York City. Four days later Chauncey informed General Dearborn that the Pike’s sails were finished and she was fully manned. Chauncey hoped to sail from Sackets Harbor by 17 July with the Pike as a part of his squadron.73 That did not happen. Two days after writing to Dearborn Chauncey informed Oliver Hazard Perry at Erie, Pennsylvania that he now planning to sail by 20 July. The next day Major General Morgan Lewis reported to Army Secretary John Armstrong that The General Pike has all her yards across, standing rigging up, guns mounted and scaled and sails finished.74 Problems remained, however. While the frigate itself was almost ready, the crew was not, as Chauncey informed Secretary Jones: “The General Pike at this moment has more than one fourth of her crew upon the Sick List.”75 This was a bit extreme, but while the squadron was at Sackets Harbor for any length of time, at least ten percent of the crew of each vessel required medical attention. Five days later, on 20 July, General Lewis informed Secretary Armstrong that Our fleet has gone out of the inner harbor, and appearances are in favor of its going to sea in 48 hours at farthest.76 The General Pike sailed for Niagara two days later, on 22 July 1813.

Armament At the beginning of April 1813, Commodore Isaac Chauncey knew his squadron had two major problems. The first was that the merchant schooners armed in the fall of 1812 were not effective warships. They were too small and their sailing characteristics too different from his larger purpose-built warships Oneida and Madison to be really useful. This problem would remain until

69 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 17 July 1813, CLB 4. 70 Henry Eckford’s voucher for labor dated 21 July 1813, NAUS, RG217, Records of the Accounting Officers of the Treasury, Fourth Auditor Settled Accounts, Alphabetic Series, Chauncey. 71 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #58, 8 July 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 4 item 170, M125 roll 29. 72 William Jones to John Bullus, 6 July 1813, SNLSM, vol 11 p.341, M209 roll 4. 73 Isaac Chauncey to Henry Dearborn, 12 July 1813, CLB 4. 74 Morgan Lewis to John Armstrong, 15 July 1813, SWLRR, item L-126 (7), M221 roll 54. 75 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #63, 17 July 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 5 item 11, M125 roll 30. 76 Morgan Lewis to John Armstrong, 20 July 1813, SWLRR, item L-134 (7), M221 roll 54.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 15 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Chauncey was able to replace many of the smaller schooners with the large schooner Sylph later that summer. His other problem was the limited number of heavy cannon on board his squadron. Most of those guns, 24 and 32 pounders, were singletons on pivot mountings on board the armed merchant schooners. These schooners were too small to be stable gun platforms or even, with three tons or more of armament on deck, to be stable at all. The new corvette Madison and the older brig Oneida mounted mostly carronades, short stubby guns firing a heavy but low velocity ball with a limited range. What Chauncey needed was a large warship armed with many heavy cannon and able to fight the British vessels, A 32-pound carronade in front of the themselves mostly carronade armed, at a range beyond Visitor’s Center at Sackets Harbor. which they could effectively reply. Photograph by the author. The armament of the new vessel was also influenced by that of the vessel the British were building at York. The corvette Sir Isaac Brock was originally designed to mount 30, 32-pound carronades for a short range broadside of 480 pounds, considerably more than the Madison’s 384 pounds.77 This armament plan was later modified to 26 carronades and four 18 pound cannon, still a very respectable 452 pound broadside and now with some long-range fire capability. The cannon would be mounted in the corvette’s bridle ports, two in the bow and two in the stern.78 The presence of the Sir Isaac Brock and something of its planned armament was known to the Americans at Black Rock on the Niagara River by 24 January 1813 and communicated to Commodore Chauncey shortly thereafter.79 The record does present some uncertainty regarding the nature and timing of the General Pike’s original armament, including the maximum number of guns that could fire on a broadside. This information is summarized in Table 9. Chauncey Sinclair Malcomson 1813-1480 181381 200182 Gun Ports 26 28 26 Broadside guns 13 14 13 Pivot guns 2 0 2

77 Andrew Gray to George Prevost, 11 December 1812, NAC, RG8, C.728 pp.119-124, C-3243. 78 Armament requisition for the “New vessel building at York” included in Andrew Gray to Noah Freer, 15 January 1813, NAC, RG8, C.729 p.11, C-3243. 79 Charles G. Boerstler to Secretary of the Navy, 24 January 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 1 item 33a, M125 roll 26. 80 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4; A Return of Vessels of War belonging to the United States upon Lake Ontario exhibiting their force in Guns and Men, 10 June 1813, AF, M625 roll 76 frames 201-203; A View of the Force of the Squadron on Lake Ontario under the Command of Commodore Isaac Chauncey exhibiting the number of guns and caliber each ship can fight on a broadside, 15 July 1814, AF, M625 roll 77 frames 25-27. 81 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 4 July 1813, Malcomson, Robert, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.45. 82 Robert Malcomson, Warships of the Great Lakes 1754-1834 (London UK: Chatham Publishing, 2001) p.79.

Page 16 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Chauncey Sinclair Malcomson 1813-1480 181381 200182 Total guns 28 28 28 Total broadside guns 15 14 15 Table 9 – Reported Armament of the Frigate General Pike Arthur Sinclair, in a letter to his father-in-law John Hartwell Cocke, wrote that the General Pike had 28 broadside gun ports, or 14 on each side. Chauncey’s 1814 maximum force specified 13 broadside guns a side plus two pivot guns, but it does not state the actual number of gun ports. Malcomson apparently went with the 26 gun ports assumed from Chauncey’s 1814 report. However, Sinclair was specific in his letter to Cocke and that should take precedence as he wrote in July 1813 when he was captain of the General Pike. He certainly knew what his own ship looked like. It appears that Chauncey’s original plan was for a ship A 24-pound cannon in front of the Visitor’s to mount 14 guns on each side for a broadside weight Center at Sackets Harbor. The guns mounted of 336 pounds. This was less than the 392 pound on the General Pike were about 18 inches broadside of the new British corvette Wolfe that shorter. Photograph by the author. mounted mostly 68 and 32-pound carronades, but was able to fire effectively at a range about 1,000 yards greater than most of the Wolfe’s guns.83 It was probably Henry Eckford who suggested a modification to this plan. Eckford believed in the effectiveness of cannon mounted on pivot carriages. Unlike a broadside gun, a pivot mounting allowed a cannon to be fired in (theoretically) any direction independent of the course the ship was steering. The potential advantage of such a mounting during a naval battle was considerable. However, in actual practice the presence of masts, rigging, bowsprit, boats and deck structures limited a pivot gun to firing at an enemy only within about a 30-degree angle relative to each side of the ship or a somewhat wider arc if mounted in front of the foremast or behind the mizzen mast. Eckford and Chauncey agreed that the new frigate should have a forecastle deck above the gun deck running from the bow to the fore mast and a quarterdeck from the mizzen mast to the stern. A pivot-mounted 24-pound cannon would be installed on each deck. This would give the General Pike a 384-pound long-range broadside, almost matching that of the Wolfe at short range. However, Eckford knew that adding the three ton weight of a 24-pound pivot gun so high up in the bow while at the same time retaining the two foremost 24-pound broadside cannon would have an adverse effect on the ship’s handling. It would be too much weight located too far forward. From the available records it appears a compromise was reached. The bow and stern pivot guns were retained but the two foremost main deck gun ports were left empty with their port covers closed. That way if the high-mounted bow pivot gun caused stability problems, the gun and its deck could be quickly removed and two broadside cannon or carronades added.84 The new

83 For the Wolfe’s armament in August 1813 see Malcomson, Robert, Lords of the Lake (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1998) p.335. 84 A similar situation occurred with the brig Oneida. Her original planned armament was 16, 24 pound carronades and a 32 pound pivot-mounted cannon on a forecastle deck. The pivot gun was never mounted, it being accepted that so much weight so high up and so far forward would harm the vessel’s stability and

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 17 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 arrangement had the same 15-gun, 360 pound cannon broadside as the gun deck of the U. S. frigate Constitution. However, a standard 24-pound cannon was over nine feet long and weighed about three tons. The 28 cannon barrels alone would weigh some 84 tons, a heavy load for a 900 ton frigate. Fortunately Chauncey knew where he could obtain 24-pound cannon that would reduce that load by almost 15 tons. As Chauncey wrote to Navy Agent John Bullus at New A short 24-pound cannon York City: The guns that I wish you to send are the old 24 pounders that were landed from the Constitution … The reason that I require those guns in particular is that they are short and light — the ship here will bear them with great convenience and as we shall have to encounter some heavy batteries at Kingston we require heavy metal.85 The Constitution’s original 24-pound cannon were probably cast and bored in 1796 at Rhode Island’s Furnace Hope Foundry, essentially the same as the ones specified in 1798 to arm the seacoast fortifications except they were shorter.86 These cannon had the specifications shown in Table 10. As a 1798 report stated, the thickness of the metal, “one caliber and one seventh,” was “the greatest thickness used at present, either in France or England.” After manufacture, the guns were tested by firing two 24-pound shot using up to 18 pounds eight ounces of gunpowder.87

Specification Value Overall length 8 feet 6 inches Diameter of the caliber 5.83 inches External diameter of the breech at the vent or touch hole One foot 7.35 inches External diameter at the second reinforce before the trunnions One foot 4.12 inches External diameter behind and before the muzzle ring, and at the extremity of the One foot 0.12 inches muzzle mouldings Thickness of the metal, in the direction of the vent or touch hole, and also from the 6.66 inches rear of the caliber, and in the direction thereof to the extremity of the base ring Thickness of the metal at the extremity of the second reinforce, two inches before 5.15 inches the trunnions Thickness of the metal behind and before the muzzle rings and at the extremity of 3.15 inches the muzzle mouldings Total weight (estimated) 5,000 pounds Table 10 – Specifications of the General Pike’s Short 24-Pound Cannon88

handling. The cannon was replaced by two 24 pound broadside carronades. Paul Hamilton to Melancthon Woolsey, 27 March 1810, SNLSO, vol 9 p.57, M149 roll 9. 85 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4. 86 Robert C. Wyckoff, “The Ballistics of the 24-Pounder Cannon of the USS Constitution,” Warship International, vol 28 no. 2 (1991) 148-155. 87 Naval Expenditures and the Disposition of Materials, 1 May 1798, ASP No. 12 p.53. 88 Naval Expenditures and the Disposition of Materials, 1 May 1798, ASP No. 12 p.53; Robert C. Wyckoff, “The Ballistics of the 24-Pounder Cannon of the USS Constitution,” Warship International, vol 28 no. 2 (1991) 148-155.

Page 18 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Despite their reported heavy construction and adequate testing, events that fall prove that using these guns was not one of Chauncey’s better ideas. Furthermore, only 26 of the lighter guns were available. Table 11 shows Chauncey’s order to Navy Agent John Bullus at New York City for the General Pike’s cannon and gunner’s stores.

Item Number Item Number 24-Pound cannon 26 Hooks & thimbles 180 Carriages for cannon 26 Canister shot 900 with beds & coins Ladles & worms 30 Grape shot 1,500 Powder horns 30 Battle lanterns 30 Priming wires 30 Signal lanterns 15 Rammers & sponges 30 #1 Match rope 1,500 Gun locks 30 Lintel hooks 30 Crow bars 30 6-inch rope for breechings 720 feet Gunners hand pikes 30 3-inch rope for tackle falls 3,300 feet Table 11 – Gunner’s Stores for the General Pike 89 While only 26 cannon were ordered and presumably available at New York City, enough tools (ladles, crow bars, etc.) were ordered for an additional four guns. These were not for use as spares. Spares of such items were ordered only in exceptional circumstances. This was to support 28 broadside mounted cannon and two more on pivot mounts, the arrangement described above. Some references consider the General Pike to be a corvette and not a frigate. Corvettes in 1813 had all their guns on a single deck with no decks above it. In the U. S. Navy at the time this deck was often called the spar deck. A frigate had a single complete gun deck like a corvette but also a separate forecastle deck forward and a quarterdeck aft, both of which were armed. The General Pike matches this latter definition though those decks were shorter and armed with pivot guns instead of the usual broadside cannon.90 Arthur Sinclair, the first captain of the General Pike, compared her to his former ship, the Atlantic frigate Constellation, lacking only bulwarks on the forecastle and quarterdeck, which was not possible on the General Pike due to the pivot mounted cannon.91 Sinclair also referred to the aft quarterdeck as a poop deck, probably because it only extended forward to the mizzen mast instead of to the main mast as was usual for a standard quarterdeck mounting broadside cannon.92 The General Pike sailed for the first time armed with the Constitution’s former lightweight 24- pound cannon, 24 on the gun deck and two on pivot mounts on raised decks fore and aft..

89 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 16 April 1813, CLB 4. 90 Arthur Sinclair describes these as a topgallant-forecastle deck forward and a poop deck aft. Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 4 July 1813 in Robert Malcomson, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.45. On the General Pike these decks ran from the bow to the foremast and from the mizzen mast to the stern and they were equivalent to the forecastle and quarterdecks on other frigates. The different terms were probably used to distinguish the use of pivot guns instead of broadside guns on those decks. The same term (topgallant-forecastle) was used in 1809 to refer to the never-mounted pivot gun planned for the bow of the brig Oneida. 91 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 4 July 1813 in Robert Malcomson, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.45. 92 Thanks to Dana Ashdown for suggesting the reason for Sinclair’s calling it the poop deck..

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 19 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Manning In mid-May 1813, while Commodore Chauncey was at Sackets Harbor between the American raid on York and their attack on Fort George, he worried that the General Pike would not be ready in a month as he hoped unless he received the officers needed to command her. He wrote to Navy Secretary William Jones, taking The liberty to remind you, of the necessity of her commander and officers being ordered on as soon as possible, as I am anxious to have her in a state to act offensively by the 20th of next month.93 Unlike his predecessor, Paul Hamilton, Navy Secretary Jones was usually well aware of the needs of the navy. Two days before Chauncey wrote his letter, Jones had already selected 33 year old

Master Commandant Arthur Sinclair as the General Pike’s first Arthur Sinclair captain. A new ship, nearly the size of the Essex, to mount 26 long 24 pounders, will be launched at Sackett’s Harbour on Lake Ontario in a few days; you will, therefore, without losing a moment, repair to Sackett’s Harbour by way of New York and Albany, and report yourself to Commodore Chauncey for the command of that ship.94 Arthur Sinclair received his midshipman’s warrant in 1798, became an acting lieutenant in 1804, was commissioned in 1807 and promoted to master commandant in July 1812. Previous to his commanding the General Pike, Sinclair served on board the frigates Constellation and Essex, the Syren, Spitfire and Gunboats No. 3 and No. 10. He commanded the schooner Nautilus, the brig Argus and a gunboat squadron. He was on board the Constellation when it fought and captured the French frigate Insurgente in November 1798. Unfortunately he also experienced being dismissed from the navy in 1801 during a reduction in force and he waited nearly three years to be reinstated.95 This experience left Sinclair extremely sensitive to matters of rank and position, a problem which would arise during his service under the similarly sensitive Isaac Chauncey. Concern over the status of the General Pike was widespread among the officials in Washington and Jones felt the need to reassure President Madison that everything necessary was being done, including hurrying on her new captain: Captain Sinclair is here [at Washington] and goes on in the mail tomorrow to take the command of the new ship at Sacketts Harbour.96 A few days later, after receiving Chauncey’s reminder letter, Jones informed him of Sinclair’s appointment as well as that of Surgeon Robert R. Barton: Capt Sinclair will be with you as soon as this letter, to take the command of the new ship. … Surgeon Barton is ordered to the new ship.97 Surgeon Barton, however, was destined never to serve on board the General Pike. New to the navy (he was appointed on 13 May 1813) his original orders were reportedly mis-addressed and Barton claimed he never received them. He was re-ordered to Sackets Harbor in July and arrived

93 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #26, 20 May 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 3 item 155, M125 roll 28. 94 William Jones to Arthur Sinclair, 18 May 1813, SNLSO, vol 10 p.426, M149 roll 10. 95 Service Records, p.153 (Sinclair). 96 William Jones to James Madison, 28 May 1813, PJM-PS, vol 6 pp.352-353. 97 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey #21, 31 May 1813, SNPLB, pp.26-28, T829 roll 453.

Page 20 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 there only to find himself part of the draft sent on to join Master Commandant Perry at Erie, Pennsylvania. Barton then served on board the brig Niagara during the Battle of Lake Erie in September 1813 from which he emerged unharmed but with $1,214.29 in prize money. For the General Pike’s first lieutenant, Secretary Jones chose 32 year old David Deacon: You will repair to Sacketts harbor & report yourself to the commanding naval officer on that station as a Lieut for the U S. 98 Ship building there. David Deacon Only a year younger than his new captain, Deacon became a midshipman in 1799. He was appointed an acting lieutenant in 1805 and commissioned to that rank in 1807. He served on board the frigates Augusta, Connecticut, Maryland, Constitution, Congress and John Adams. He also served on board the Experiment, Wasp and on board gunboats in the Mediterranean. Unlike Arthur Sinclair, Deacon was not effected by the 1801 reduction in force, probably because he asked for and received a one year furlough and later another for a merchant voyage during those years.99 Deacon’s career was apparently effected by his health. Twice in 1809 he was ordered to a ship (first to the brig Syren and later to the sloop Hornet) and twice he was too sick to obey. Although his record should have warranted a promotion to master commandant shortly after Sinclair, he would not receive that promotion until December 1814. With Surgeon Barton not acknowledging his original orders, Secretary Jones needed a replacement. He chose Surgeon Hyde Ray and on 4 June he ordered Ray to Repair to Sackets harbor, & report yourself to the commanding naval officer there, as surgeon for the new ship building on that station.100 Hyde Ray was appointed an acting surgeon in 1811 and a surgeon in October 1812. Before his orders to Sackets Harbor, he served on board the frigate Constellation at Norfolk, Virginia. Ray was clearly in no hurry to serve on Lake Ontario as it took him over a month to travel from Norfolk to Sackets Harbor, arriving there on 9 July 1813. Unfortunately, like Surgeon Barton, Ray did not remain there very long. Twelve days after he arrived Chauncey granted him a furlough to return south to recover his health. Ray eventually returned to Sackets Harbor but not until May 1814.101 Two weeks after his first reminder letter, Commodore Chauncey again wrote to Secretary Jones telling him of the state of affairs at Sackets Harbor and specifically about the lack of men for the General Pike: When she is ready we have not an officer or man to put on board of her, and she can be of no manner of use unless we have men.102

98 William Jones to David Deacon, 24 May 1813, NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 382 p.3. 99 Service Records, pp.65-67 (Deacon). 100 William Jones to Hyde Ray, 4 June 1813, NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 382 p.7. 101 Service Records, p.141 (Ray). 102 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #31, 4 June 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 4 item 14, M125 roll 29.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 21 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

A few days later, in a detailed squadron status report, Chauncey informed the Navy Department that 250 additional seamen and ordinary seamen were needed to man the General Pike as well as the schooner York, the ex-Duke of Gloucester taken as a prize in April.103 Even the Pike’s captain, Arthur Sinclair, was still absent. Fortunately Sinclair arrived at Sackets Harbor the very next day and Lieutenant Deacon arrived four days later. Deacon, however, was not to remain attached to the General Pike for very long. On 13 July Chauncey appointed him to command the armed merchant schooner Growler, where he and his vessel would be captured by the British on 10 August 1813. Rank Number Rank Number Armorer 1 Master Commandant (Sinclair) 1 Boatswain (Campbell, McNally) 2 Master’s Mate (Taylor) 1 Boatswain’s Mates 4 Midshipmen (Mervine, Carpender, 14 Washington, Sullivan, Brown, Walker, Alby, Brailsford, Evans, Freelon, Sands, Wetmore, Higdon, McNeil) Boatswain’s Yeoman 1 Ordinary Seamen 96 Boys 9 Pilot (Montgomery) 1 Captain’s Clerks (Lorton, Brooks) 2 Purser (Harris) 1 Carpenter (Heyden) 1 Quarter Gunner 14 Carpenter’s Mates 4 Quartermaster 8 Chaplain (Sands) 1 Sailing Master (Nicholls) 1 Commodore (Chauncey) 1 Sailmaker (Rayburg) 1 Cook 1 Seamen 149 Coopers (Carson, Howard) 2 Steward 1 Gunners (Cosgrove, Osborne) 2 Surgeon (McReynolds) 1 Gunner’s Yeoman 1 Surgeon’s Mate (Garrison) 1 Landsmen 8 TOTAL 336 Lieutenants (MacPherson, Dudley, 5 Wragg, Skinner, Gregory) Table 12 – The General Pike’s Crew as of 7 August 1813 from Pay Roll, 21 May 1814, NAUS, RG45, T829 roll 15 pp.28-54.

As shown in Table 12, when the General Pike hoisted Commodore Chauncey’s broad pendant and sailed from Sackets Harbor on 22 July 1813 she had a full, even over-full, complement of 336 officers and men. Her first lieutenant, replacing David Deacon, was 25 year old Joseph Stout MacPherson. MacPherson received his midshipman’s warrant in 1806, became an acting sailing master of the

brig Syren in 1810 and was appointed an acting lieutenant the following year. In May 1812 he was commissioned a lieutenant. In addition to the Syren, he served on board the sloop Hornet and the frigate John Adams. He began his service on the lakes at Black Rock, New York (now a part of Buffalo) in October 1812 but did not remain there long. By November he was at Sackets Harbor commanding the armed merchant schooner

103 A Return of Vessels of War belonging to the United States upon Lake Ontario exhibiting their force in Guns and Men, 10 June 1813, AF, M625 roll 76 frames 201-203.

Page 22 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Hamilton.104 On 13 July he asked for a transfer to the General Pike and that request was approved by Chauncey, the Hamilton being turned over to Lieutenant Walter Winter.105 Second lieutenant was 24 year old Joseph Wragg. Wragg became a midshipman in 1809 and served on board the frigates Essex and John Adams. He volunteered to serve on the lakes and was appointed an acting lieutenant by Isaac Chauncey in September 1812. Ordered to Black Rock, Wragg was wounded in the attack across the Niagara River in November 1812. In May 1813 he was transferred to the corvette Madison at Sackets Harbor. He was commissioned a lieutenant on 24 July 1813, number 16 on the list.106 The General Pike’s third lieutenant was James Alison Dudley. He entered the navy as a midshipman in 1809, was appointed an acting lieutenant by Isaac Chauncey at Sackets Harbor in December 1812 and was commissioned a lieutenant on 24 July 1813, number 7 on the list. Before joining the Pike he served on board the frigate John Adams and, like Wragg, was at Black Rock where he was also wounded in the attack across the Niagara River in November 1812. After he recovered, he had the misfortune to be captured by the British while hunting ducks on Strawberry Island in the Niagara River. Exchanged, he returned to Sackets Harbor in time to take up his post on board the General Pike.107 Charles W. Skinner became the Pike’s fourth lieutenant. He received his warrant as a midshipman in 1809, was appointed an acting sailing master on board the schooner Nautilus in December 1811 and an acting lieutenant on board the armed merchant schooner Fair American at Sackets Harbor by Isaac Chauncey on 30 March 1813. He received his lieutenant’s commission on 24 July 1813, number 15 on the list. Before arriving at Sackets Harbor, Skinner also served on board the frigate United States.108 Although their relative positions on board the General Pike when she sailed from Sackets Harbor in July 1813 were as stated above but this did not last long. Wragg, Dudley and Skinner all received their lieutenant’s commissions on 24 July 1813 but their positions on that list changed their status. Once those positions became known, Dudley became the General Pike’s second lieutenant, Skinner the frigate’s third lieutenant and Wragg her fourth. The frigate’s fifth lieutenant was 24 year old Francis Hoyt Gregory who became a midshipman in 1809, an acting sailing master at New Orleans in 1811 and an acting lieutenant at Sackets Harbor in March 1813. Before Francis Hoyt Gregory arriving on board the General Pike, Gregory served on board the Revenge, Vesuvius and commanded Gunboat No. 162 at New Orleans. After arriving at Sackets Harbor he served on board the armed merchant schooner Hamilton and the corvette Madison. After the War of 1812 Gregory went on to have a long and successful career in the navy, retiring in 1862 as a rear admiral.109

104 Service Records, p.114 (MacPherson). 105 Isaac Chauncey to Joseph MacPherson, 13 July 1813, CLB 4. 106 Service Records, pp.182-183 (Wragg). 107 Service Records, p.69 (Dunham). 108 Service Records, pp.154-155 (Skinner).

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 23 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

When she sailed for the first time, the General Pike’s surgeon was John D. McReynolds who became a surgeon’s mate in 1810 and was commissioned a surgeon in 1811. Before arriving at Sackets Harbor in May 1813, he served on board the frigate John Adams and at Black Rock, New York. After his arrival he served on board the corvette Madison until his transfer to the Pike on 13 July 1813.110 The Pike’s purser, responsible for maintaining the frigate’s provisions and other supplies as well as for paying the officers and men, was Gwinn Harris. Harris was one of the most experienced pursers in the navy, having been appointed in 1804. He had served on board the frigate Constitution and in the Mediterranean on board the brig Syren. He also saw duty at the St. Mary’s, Georgia station. Secretary Jones ordered him to Sackets Harbor as the General Pike’s purser on 18 May 1813.111 The final senior officer on board the frigate was Sailing Master Thomas Nichols who was transferred from the dispatch schooner Lady of the Lake by Chauncey’s order on 12 July 1813. He became an acting sailing master at New York City in May 1812 and received his warrant the following July. Before serving on the Lady of the Lake, Nichols was at Sackets Harbor on board the armed merchant schooner Fair American.112 Date of Ordered to Midshipman’s Name Age Warrant General Pike Salt Water Service Great Lakes Service Mervine, William 22 1809.01.16 1813.07.01 Syren, John Adams Black Rock (wounded 28 November 1812), Hamilton, Pert Brailsford, William Heyward 1809.12.01 1813.07.12 John Adams Black Rock (wounded 28 November 1812), Madison Evans. John 18 1810.12.17 1813.07.11 Vixen (became Madison POW), Chesapeake Brown, William 1811.06.09 1813.07.11 Chesapeake Madison Walker, Daniel R. 1811.06.09 1813.07.12 John Adams Black Rock, Madison Higdon, Benedict 1812.01.01 1813.07.17 Constellation Oneida McNeil, Archibald 1812.01.01 1813.05.26 Vixen (became None POW) Washington, William S. J. 17 1812.02.05 1813.06.11 Constitution None Freelon, Thomas W. 1812.06.12 1813.07.12 None Governor Tompkins, Madison Alby, Seth Burnham 16 1812.06.18 1813.07.12 None Madison Sands, Joshua Ratoon 16 1812.06.18 1813.07.13 None Oneida, Madison Wetmore, William Chauncey 15 1812.06.18 1813.07.13 None Madison Sullivan, John M. 16 1813.03.12 1813.07.11 None Governor Tompkins, (Acting) Fair American Carpender, Edward William 16 1813.07.10 1813.07.10 None None

109 Service Records, pp.86-88 (Gregory). 110 Service Records, p.122 (McReynolds). 111 Service Records, pp.90-91 (Harris). 112 Service Records, p.128 (Nichols).

Page 24 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Table 13 – The General Pike’s Midshipmen as of 7 August 1813 by Date of Warrant from Pay Roll, 21 May 1814, NAUS, RG45, T829 roll 15 pp.28-54 and Service Records.

As Table 12 shows, the General Pike’s numerous midshipmen were a diverse lot when it came to experience. Senior was William Mervine who had held his warrant for four and a half years. Chauncey would appoint him an acting lieutenant before the end of August 1813.113 Two men (Evans and McNeil) had just returned from being exchanged. They became prisoners of war when their brig Vixen was taken on the Atlantic in 1812 by Captain Sir James Lucas Yeo’s frigate Southampton. In August 1813 these men were probably the only members of the crew to have actually met Yeo.114 Midshipman Mervine and the next most senior midshipman, William Brailsford, both began their Great Lakes service at Black Rock where they were wounded in the 28 November 1812 attack across the Niagara River. Both recovered in time to join the General Pike. Midshipman Walker also came from Black Rock but was uninjured.115 The juniors, Sullivan and Carpender, had been midshipmen for such a short time that they would be of little use on board, and especially in a fight, until they acquired some experience. This was Midshipman Carpender’s first ship.116 This was an above average complement of midshipmen which was proven by their subsequent service in the navy. Of the 14, two (Mervine and Sands) retired in 1866 with the rank of rear admiral, Carpender ended his career as a commodore. Freelon and Wetmore reached the rank of commander, four men were promoted to lieutenant and the rest remained midshipmen. One such, Washington, was a midshipman for 16 years until 1828 when he was dismissed from the navy by order of the president for failing to qualify for promotion.117 Overall, the General Pike’s first crew was experienced enough to do well as Commodore Chauncey’s flagship. For a ship her size she was over-officered. Most small frigates operated with only three lieutenants, the Pike had five, and 14 midshipmen, twice the usual number. There were many 74-gun ships-of-the-line in British service that had fewer lieutenants and midshipmen on board than did the 26-gun General Pike. Given Chauncey’s earlier complaints about the lack of officers and men it is certain he had little left to complain about when the Pike finally sailed. Secretary Jones, however, did complain. He believed that Chauncey’s request for additional men was unnecessary and that the General Pike would be adequately manned without them. Jones itemized the men already ordered to Sackets Harbor and concluded that the total

113 Service Records, pp.122-124 (Mervine). 114 Service Records, pp.73-74 (Evans), 121-122 (McNeil). 115 Service Records, pp.38 (Brailsford) & 173 (Walker). 116 Service Records, pp.45-46 (Carpender) & 164 (Sullivan). 117 Service Records, pp.80 (Freelon), 151-152 (Sands), 174-175 (Washington) & 176-177 (Wetmore).

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 25 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Will most assuredly more than man the whole of the vessels on both lakes better than the same number and description of vessels ever were in any service.118 Chauncey replied to Jones explaining his need for additional men: When you sir, considered that I had a sufficient number of men to man the whole squadron including the General Pike, I presume that you did not advert to the armament of that ship which is the same with that of the [frigate] President’s gundeck, and to be as well manned, she would require the same number of officers and men exclusive of those stationed at the carronades upon the upper deck.119 With the General Pike finally complete and (despite Chauncey’s protests to the contrary) more than fully manned, on Thursday, 22 July 1813 the squadron sailed from Sackets Harbor for Niagara with Commodore Chauncey’s broad pendant flying on the General Pike.

Night Fight On her way to Niagara the General Pike encountered the dispatch schooner Lady of the Lake bound for Sackets Harbor with 20 British prisoners of war on board. Chauncey transferred those men to the schooner Raven and sent her to Sackets Harbor, keeping the Lady of the Lake with him. Chauncey included a letter to Major General Morgan Lewis at Sackets Harbor asking Lewis to keep the armament of the General Pike a secret from the British as long as possible: As our prisoners had an opportunity of seeing our force particularly that of this ship, I should deem it unadvisable to suffer them to return to Kingston at this time as I conceive it of importance to keep the enemy ignorant of our actual force in guns. — I hope therefore that you will not suffer any of them to return on their parole.120 The Lady of the Lake also delivered a letter from Brigadier General John Boyd at Niagara informing Chauncey that the British had a deposit of stores at the Head of the Lake and Chauncey decided to capture them. He sent a letter back to Boyd asking him to put “the best guides you can procure” on board the Lady of the Lake and to meet him at the Head of the Lake. The Lady of the Lake met Chauncey with the guides, Colonel Winfield Scott and a company of the Third Artillery on board. The General Pike and the rest of the squadron then returned to Niagara and took on board 250 additional soldiers and sailed for Burlington Bay, arriving there on 29 July. The troops and marines were landed, but they found the British supplies were too heavily defended for a successful attack. The landing party was reembarked and the General Pike and the rest of the squadron sailed for York, arriving there at 3 p.m. on 31 July. York was undefended. Colonel Scott and his men were landed and captured provisions, cannon, ammunition, a number of small boats and other supplies which were either taken on board or destroyed. After setting the public store houses on fire, the troops reembarked and the squadron sailed for Niagara arriving there on 3 August 1813. At Niagara, Chauncey dispatched a group of officers and men, many from the General Pike, to Erie to join Perry. This required some adjustments in the arrangement of the General Pike’s crew, as Chauncey reported to Secretary Jones:

118 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey #25, 3 July 1813, SNPLB pp.41-47. 119 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #63, 17 July 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 5 item 11, M125 roll 30. 120 Isaac Chauncey to Morgan Lewis, 24 July 1813, CLB 4.

Page 26 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

In consequence of taking so many men from this ship it has so deranged her batterys that I have been lothe to go on shore before I had the men requartered and stationed and seen them exercised at their guns.121 On 6 August Chauncey met with Generals Boyd and Williams and they decided to embark 1,500 soldiers on board Chauncey’s squadron, sail to the Head of the Lake and, now with an adequate force, capture the British supplies. At sunrise the next day these plans were upset by the sudden appearance of the British squadron under Commodore Sir James Lucas Yeo. Chauncey in the General Pike immediately sailed with his squadron to engage the British but Yeo managed to keep his distance. Later that day the winds became very light and as evening progressed they died away completely. During the maneuvers Commodore Yeo observed that The Pike is a very fine large ship but appears to be very unwieldy, and unmanageable and from the manner she is worked, should judge is not complete with seamen.122 After midnight a sudden violent squall found the armed merchant schooners Hamilton and Scourge unprepared and they were upset and sunk. The next day the two squadrons maneuvered on the lake, each trying to gain the advantage but without result. That evening it became squally and Chauncey returned to Niagara to rest his crews “as we had been at quarters for nearly forty hours.”123 The following morning, 9 August, with Yeo’s force in sight, the General Pike and the rest of the squadron sailed again to engage him. Once again the wind became light and then calm, keeping the two squadrons well apart for most of that day. The next day, 10 August 1813, in an attempt to close with the British, Chauncey’s larger vessels began towing some of the armed merchant schooners. The General Pike spent the day towing the Asp. As night fell Chauncey’s squadron was formed into two columns, with the British squadron behind and at some distance to windward. Chauncey had his small schooners in the column nearest the British to be used as bait to entice Yeo to close with and engage them. When the British got close enough, at Chauncey’s signal these schooners were to pass through the leeward column which contained Chauncey’s strongest vessels, the General Pike, Madison and Oneida. Those vessels would then engage and defeat the British. It all went wrong. At first Yeo appeared to take the bait, closing the range from astern and approaching Chauncey’s windward column containing the small armed merchant schooners. Then, disaster. When the General Pike made the signal, the two leading schooners, the Julia and Growler, turned to port instead of starboard and rather than passing through Chauncey’s leeward column as ordered, they sailed across the head of Yeo’s squadron. Despite efforts on their part to rejoin Chauncey the American schooners were quickly cut off by the British and captured. Chauncey, probably unsure in the dark of exactly what had happened or why, and with the General Pike having taken a few shot from the British as they passed, broke off the action and left the two schooners to their fate. By 1 a.m. the British secured their two prizes and, having the best of the action, disappeared into the night. The next morning the British squadron was in sight but again the wind did not favor Chauncey. It had become very squally and the rough weather caused him to leave two of his schooners at Niagara while the General Pike and the rest of his squadron sailed to the mouth of the Genesee

121 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones, 4 August 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 5 item 69, M125 roll 30. 122 James Lucas Yeo to George Prevost, 9 August 1813, NAC, RG8, C.730, pp.78-80, roll C-3243. 123 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones, 4 August 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 5 item 69, M125 roll 30.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 27 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

River. Once there, reports informed Chauncey that his entire squadron was critically short of provisions so the squadron continued on to Sackets Harbor, the General Pike anchoring there on 13 August.124 It was an altogether disappointing cruise. Chauncey failed to capture the British supplies at the Head of the Lake, his second attempt to do so never got started, and he lost four of his best armed merchant schooners, two to the enemy and two to Mother Nature. Some supplies were captured at York but that was little compensation for his losses or his frustration. Two of those losses, the schooners Growler and Julia, were really Chauncey’s fault. His battle plan was overly complex and extremely dangerous even if it had worked as expected. The operation required one group of vessels to pass through a line of vessels at night and in the presence of the enemy, an evolution that there is no evidence Chauncey’s squadron ever practiced. A collision between two vessels during the pass-through was very possible. an event that could leave the entire squadron in disarray and vulnerable. Furthermore, Chauncey’s plan left the initiative to the British. If Yeo did not act as expected the whole plan fell apart. Finally, Chauncey should have avoided fighting at night as controlling the action became much more difficult and error prone.

Off the Genesee After his return to Sackets Harbor in mid-August, Commodore Chauncey elected to wait until his new large schooner Sylph was ready for service before sailing again to confront Yeo. This caused a two week delay during which time the General Pike remained at anchor, idle, in Black River Bay. Chauncey sailed in the General Pike on 29 August and the Sylph joined the squadron two days later. On 7 September Chauncey sighted the British close to the mouth of the Niagara River. He immediately set off in the General Pike an attempt to force an engagement on his terms but Yeo was able to avoid an action. As Chauncey described the situation to Secretary Jones: The General Pike flying Commodore Chauncey’s broad During our long chase we frequently got within from one to two pendant in action with the British miles of the enemy, but our heavy sailing schooners prevented off the Genesee River 125 our closing with him. 12 September 1813. A drawing by Midshipman Peter Spicer The General Pike, Madison and Sylph were each towing one of the small schooners to help them keep up with the squadron. Doing so, however, reduced the speed of the vessels doing the towing which allowed Yeo to maintain his distance. This nautical dance continued for almost five days until 12 September when Chauncey sighted Yeo’s squadron becalmed off the mouth of the Genesee River. The General Pike, some distance to the west, had a breeze and was slowly closing the distance. Finally the range dropped to within about ¾ of a mile and the General Pike opened fire. Finally Chauncey was able to use his long range cannon on board the General Pike to advantage. As Commodore Yeo later reported to Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren at Halifax,

124 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones, 4 August 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 5 item 69, M125 roll 30. 125 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #82, 19 September 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 43, M125 roll 31.

Page 28 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

I found it impossible to bring them [the Americans] to close action. We remained in this mortifying situation five hours, having only six guns in all the squadron that would reach the enemy (not a carronade being fired).126 Only the cannon-armed General Pike was able to effectively get into the fight, Chauncey’s other vessels, including the Sylph and three of the armed merchant schooners fired at the British but the range was too great and the fire ineffective. Chauncey attempted to signal the Sylph and the schooners to close with and support the General Pike but the signals were not promptly obeyed possibly because they were not seen.127 During the fight, Captain Samuel Archer of the Third U.S. Artillery was on board the General Pike with a mortar, which Archer had mounted on the forecastle pivot gun’s carriage replacing the 24-pound cannon. It was an idea worth trying and, had the mortar been properly mounted, it might have been more of a success, as Arthur Sinclair reported, He threw some good shells out, she dismounted herself the 12th shot, and I hoisted the 24pdr in her place and gave him [Archer] the command of her.128 Finally, to Yeo’s relief, the wind returned and enabled him to sail out of range. Chauncey, though disappointed, reported to Secretary Jones that he had done Yeo some damage and at little cost to the General Pike and none whatever to the rest of his squadron.129 I got several broadsides from this ship upon the enemy, which must have done him considerable injury as many of the shot was seen to strike him and people was observed over the side pluging shot holes; a few shot struck our Hull and a little riging was cut but nothing of importance not a man was hurt.130 Chauncey was correct, the Wolfe had been damaged. In addition, Midshipman William Ellery, two seamen and two soldiers on board the Wolfe were killed and six seamen wounded.131 It could have been worse. Two weeks after the action Chauncey reported a situation which, had it been true, would have cost Yeo the services of his second-in-command, the very capable William Howe Mulcaster: I have learnt from a source which can be depended upon that we did the enemy much more injury in our rencounter on the 11th than I had expected — I find that we killed Captain Mulcaster of the

126 James Lucas Yeo to John Borlase Warren, 12 September 1813, NAUK, ADM 1/2736 pp.137-138, B- 2941. 127 Handwritten description of the action off the Genesee River by Arthur Sinclair, Notebook of Arthur Sinclair 1813-1814, NAUS, RG45, entry 401 vol 2 of 4. Woolsey Journal 7 entry for 12 September 1813 on board the Sylph notes “At 3:08 P.M. commodore made signal 600 with our distinguishing flag” but no indication that the Sylph took any action. On 3:53 that signal was repeated “which we complied with.” Another 600 signal was made to the Sylph at 6:15 P.M. 600 signals were also made by the Pike to the Conquest and Governor Tompkins. 128 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 10 October 1813 in Robert Malcomson, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.59. 129 General Pike had only one man slightly wounded. Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 10 October 1813 in Robert Malcomson, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.59. 130 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #83, 13 September 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 43, M125 roll 31. 131 Dead were one midshipman (Ellery) two able seaman and one soldier each from the Royal Newfoundland and 100th Regiments. Three able and three ordinary seamen were wounded. Casualty list included in James Lucas Yeo to John Borlase Warren, 12 September 1813, NAUK, ADM 1/2736 pp.137- 138, roll B-2941.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 29 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Royal George and a number of his men and did considerable injury to the ship as well as several of the other vessels.132 After escaping from the American’s fire, the British squadron steered towards the False Duck Islands pursued by Chauncey’s squadron until Yeo entered Amherst Bay Which is so little known to our pilots and said to be full of shoals that they are not willing to take me in there.133 Apparently the General Pike’s pilot, Archibald Montgomery, unfamiliar with that part of the lake, recommended that Chauncey not pursue Yeo any further. Cautious as usual, Chauncey agreed but put the responsibility on the “pilots” for his decision not to follow Yeo. Typically for this period, both Chauncey and Yeo blamed the poor sailing qualities of their respective squadrons for their failure to successfully engage the enemy. Yeo commented that From their having the wind of us, and the dull sailing of some of our squadron, I found it impossible to bring them to close action.134 Chauncey, in turn, blamed the poor sailing qualities of his small schooners: This ship, the Madison, and the Sylph has each a schooner constantly in tow yet the others can not sail as fast as the enemies squadron which gives him decidedly the advantage and puts it in his power to engage me when and how he chusses.135 Chauncey’s squadron remained outside Amherst Bay for some time hoping to engage Yeo when he emerged but on 17 September a strong westerly wind blew Chauncey off station and Yeo’s squadron was able to reach Kingston. Chauncey then took the General Pike and the rest of his squadron to Sackets Harbor to meet with Secretary of War John Armstrong. The next morning, 18 September, the General Pike and the rest of Chauncey’s squadron sailed for Niagara. It was a slow trip. Strong and contrary head winds delayed their arrival for six days. On the way the Pike observed Yeo’s squadron near the False Ducks Islands but Chauncey elected to leave them alone: “I wished him to follow me up the lake.”136 Chauncey’s wish would be granted. At Niagara, Chauncey met with Major General James Wilkinson on 24 September. Wilkinson informed Chauncey that his army would be ready to move from Niagara to Sackets Harbor in small boats beginning in about four days. It was now Chauncey’s job to make sure Yeo’s squadron did not interfere with this movement. The army would be carried by a fleet of small boats sailing along the south shore of Lake Ontario and not on board the General Pike and the other vessels in the squadron as had previously been done several times that year.

The Burlington Races On 26 September, while Wilkinson’s troops were embarking in their boats, Chauncey received word that Yeo’s squadron was at York which was confirmed by a reconnaissance performed by the Lady of the Lake. The next day the General Pike and the rest of the squadron sailed from

132 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #84, 25 September 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 92, M125 roll 31. 133 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #83, 13 September 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 43, M125 roll 31. 134 James Lucas Yeo to John Borlase Warren, 12 September 1813, NAUK, ADM 1/2736 pp.137-138, roll B-2941. 135 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #83, 13 September 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 43, M125 roll 31. 136 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #84, 25 September 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 92, M125 roll 31.

Page 30 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Niagara in pursuit. On the morning of 28 September each of Chauncey’s large vessels took an armed merchant schooner in tow, the General Pike towing the Asp. Sighting the British shortly after noon, Chauncey began to close with them, both squadrons sailing southeast into Burlington Bay. As the wind was blowing a gale from the east, the British were caught in a bad tactical position. The Americans had the weather gauge, Yeo’s squadron lacked maneuvering room, and both squadrons were being blown steadily closer to shore. The General Pike managed to close with Yeo’s flagship Wolfe and a battle between the two ships began. After about 20 minutes of firing, the Wolfe had her main and mizzen top masts shot away which also took down her main yard and the square sails on her main and mizzen masts. At this point Yeo was in serious trouble. The Wolfe could no longer maneuver and was forced to run before the wind depending on her foremast sails alone. At this point the Royal George, under the command of William Howe Mulcaster, sailed between Chauncey and Yeo, taking the brunt of the General Pike’s fire and allowing the crew of the Wolfe time to clear away the wreckage of the sails, masts and spars. The chase continued with the Canadian shore coming ever closer. As the Pike’s captain, Arthur Sinclair observed: The wind was blowing a gale right into this narrow bay full forty miles deep, owned on all sides by the enemy, the weather showing every appearance of the equinoctial gale, and their whole fleet so completely disabled that they must either go on shore to surrender in less than an hour if we dare pursue them.137 Finally, just before 3 p.m., Chauncey broke off the action, allowing the British to anchor safely and unmolested in Burlington Bay. Chauncey was criticized (then and later) for his failure to pursue Yeo into the bay but he had his reasons for not doing so. The General Pike had not escaped unscathed. As Chauncey reported to Navy Secretary William Jones, This ship was making so much water, that it required all our pumps to keep her free (owing to our receiving several shot so much below the water edge, that we could not plug the holes from the outside).138

137 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 10 October 1813, Malcomson, Robert, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.61. 138 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #85, 1 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 115, M125 roll 31.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 31 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

In addition, one of the Pike’s forward 24-pound broadside cannon exploded, killing and wounding a number of men, damaging the forecastle deck and disabling its pivot gun.139 In addition, four other 24-pound cannons had cracks around their muzzles which, in Chauncey’s words “rendered their use extremely doubtful.” The Pike’s captain, Arthur Sinclair, later wrote to his brother-in-law John Hartwell Cocke that Our guns cast to the eastward are horrid things. Several others of them are cracked, and we find them filled up with lead where they have been flawed. Such are Yankee tricks.140 Clearly using these lightweight cannon was not the best decision on Chauncey’s part and the Constitution was certainly The Burlington Races, 28 September 1813 better off without them on HMS Royal George (center) protects Commodore Sir James Lucas Yeo’s heavily damaged flagship HMS Wolfe (right) which has lost her main and board. mizzen top masts and her main yard, from the fire of Commodore Isaac Chauncey’s flagship General Pike (left). The General Pike also Detail from a painting by Peter Rindlisbacher. suffered some mast, rigging and sail damage herself, as Chauncey reported to Jones: Our main top gallant mast was shot away in the early part of the action, and the bow spirit, fore and main mast wounded, rigging and sails much cut up and a number of shot in our hull, several of which were between wind and water. 141 During the fight Seamen Thomas Dailey and Thomas Nelson were killed, seaman John Bennet lost his right leg and 19 others of the General Pike’s crew were wounded.142. The brig Oneida and the armed merchant schooner Governor Tompkins also suffered some battle damage. The rest of Chauncey’s squadron never managed to get into the fight and remained unharmed.

139 This was not the first time one of Chauncey’s cannon exploded. In November 1812, while attacking Kingston, the armed merchant schooner Pert ‘s 32-pound pivot gun burst, wounding her captain, Sailing Master Robert Arundel. Arundel, dazed, was later knocked overboard by the schooners own boom and drowned. 140 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 10 October 1813, Malcomson, Robert, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.63. 141 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #85, 1 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 115, M125 roll 31. 142 NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, Pay Roll dated 21 May 1814, T829 roll 15 pp.28-54; pension record for John Bennet, files of the Sackets Harbor Battlefield NY State Historic Site. Bennet arrived on board on 7 July 1813 and was discharged when his term expired on 13 December. He was granted a pension of $6.00 per month for his injury.

Page 32 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Although most of the damage to the General Pike could be easily repaired, Chauncey declined to continue the engagement by pursuing the British into Burlington Bay. Chauncey feared that the British would be well protected by their army’s shore batteries. Therefore, as Chauncey excused his inaction to Secretary Jones, I without hesitation relinquished the opportunity then presenting itself of acquiring individual reputation at the expense of my country. 143 Instead, Chauncey returned with his squadron to Niagara to communicate with General Wilkinson and learn the status of Wilkinson’s preparations for moving his army east to Sackets Harbor. While Chauncey did have some valid reasons for discontinuing the fight, in doing so he lost his best and really only opportunity during the entire war to defeat the British and acquire uncontested command of Lake Ontario. Chauncey was always willing to fight Yeo as long as he would not suffer significant damage or risk the loss of any of his own vessels by doing so. Yeo, of course, took the correct action on this and many other occasions by attempting to avoid a fight. As long as Yeo kept his squadron intact he was accomplishing his objective and denying Chauncey the ability to accomplish his. If you had a good telescope, the entire fight between Chauncey and Yeo was visible from the heights of the Niagara escarpment, or “Lewiston mountain,” as New York militia surgeon Joseph L. Pitney wrote to his father afterwards: The combat lasted with equal resistance for 55 minutes and then the British retreated and Chauncey in pursuit, then a running fight for one hour and ¾ when Yeo secured himself under one of their navy land batteries towards the Head of the Lake, without the loss of any vessels on either side.144

Consolation Prize The General Pike remained at Niagara until the last of Wilkinson’s army left for Sackets Harbor in their small boats. Chauncey then sailed on 2 October to locate the British squadron. He had no sooner left the mouth of the Niagara River when Yeo was sighted heading towards him. The British immediately changed course to avoid an action and Chauncey’s squadron, including the General Pike, set off after them. For the rest of that day and all the next, light winds and frequent calms prevented the General Pike from closing with the British. By daybreak on 4 October Yeo’s squadron had disappeared. Chauncey sent the Lady of the Lake to search Burlington Bay but she reported no sign of the British.145 This left Chauncey with two possibilities: It struck me at once that he [Yeo] had availed himself of the darkness of the preceding night and had either run for Kingston or down the lake, for the purpose of intercepting the flotilla with the army.146 Chauncey then steered for the Ducks Islands as he believed that location would give him the best change to intercept Yeo. Although Chauncey’s larger vessels were each towing one of the armed

143 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #85, 1 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 115, M125 roll 31. 144 Joseph L. Pitney to Mahlon Pitney, 4 October 1813, private collection, copy at the Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site. 145 The British, however, were at Burlington Bay and did see the Lady of the Lake. Log of the Wolfe for 3 October 1813, NAUS, RG 45, entry 44 volume 5 of 10. Why the British could see a small schooner while the Lady of the Lake could not see Yeo’s entire squadron remains unexplained. 146 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #91, 8 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 147, M125 roll 31.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 33 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 merchant schooners, a gale force wind from the west allowed the squadron to make good progress.147 At 3 p.m. on 5 October, as the General Pike approached the Ducks Islands, Chauncey saw a number of sails to the east, well away from the Canadian shore and apparently heading for Kingston. Chauncey believed he had found Yeo’s squadron. Yeo, however, was at York where he had been since the early morning of 4 October. What Chauncey discovered was an unescorted British troop convoy. Chauncey took up the chase. Half an hour later he realized that he had not found Yeo bur rather a group of sloops and schooners which Chauncey initially assumed were gunboats.148 The convoy’s commander, Royal Navy Lieutenant Hector MacLean, ordered his vessels to scatte and try to evade the Americans.149 Chauncey first ordered the Sylph to cast off her tow and chase down the British. The General Pike than cast off her own tow of the Governor Tompkins and joined the chase herself. That afternoon a gale force wind was blowing from the northwest, giving Chauncey’s larger vessels a significant speed advantage over Maclean’s smaller transports which were having a hard time handling the gale. As night approached the Sylph and General Pike were rapidly closing with the convoy. By the next morning, one British vessels was destroyed by her own crew, five others were captured by the General Pike and Sylph, and only one, the schooner Enterprize, escapted and reached Kingston.150 Now burdened with prizes and 252 prisoners, Chauncey had no choice but to take his squadron back to Sackets Harbor where the General Pike arrived at dawn the next day. Still concerned about the whereabouts of Yeo’s squadron, Chauncey dispatched the Lady of the Lake to try to locate them. She returned that afternoon with the welcome news that Yeo’s squadron was seen heading for Kingston and was no longer a threat to Wilkinson’s flotilla. In the United States the newspapers were preparing the public to expect a major naval victory on Lake Ontario to match Oliver Hazard Perry’s on Lake Erie. When a steam boat with word of Chauncey’s prizes reached New York City the overreaction was immediate: The docks were crowded with citizens, and when the gallant Chauncey’s victory was proclaimed, the air rebounded with Huzzas; and the national flag was immediately hoisted upon all the public buildings in the city. Clearly misunderstanding the magnitude of Chauncey’s success, the same article went on to state that

147 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #91, 8 October 1813, NAUS, RG45, SNLRC 1813 vol 6 item,147, M125 roll l 31. 148 Entry in the log of the Madison for October 5, 1813; New York Mercantile Advertiser, 15 October 1813. 149 The Confiance’s “course was altered at the appearance of the American squadron,” answer given by witness John Johnson to the twenty-ninth interrogatory of his deposition in the case of the schooner Confiance before the district court of the United States for the District of New York, PRR, case 25, M928 roll 2. Maclean’s own vessel, the Drummond, apparently maintained its original course: “her course was not altered on the appearance of the American fleet,” answer given by witness John Segersvard to the twenty-ninth interrogatory of his deposition before the district court of the United States for the District of New York, PRR 1813 case 28, M928 roll 2. 150 A full description of this action and its aftermath appears in Gary M. Gibson, “”Consolation Prize,” Inland Seas, Vol. 69 No,. 3, Fall 2013, pp.233-245.

Page 34 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Commodore Chauncey has now the decided superiority on Lake Ontario, and our armies can be transported without the least hazard from the remnant of the enemy’s fleet.151 Subsequent events would demonstrate the inaccuracy of that prediction. As usual, the further west news travelled the more distorted it became. By the time word reached Tennessee it had become “Commodore Chauncey has succeeded in capturing the British force on Lake Ontario.”152 Unaware of all this excitement, the General Pike remained quietly at anchor at Sackets Harbor for several days awaiting General Wilkinson’s movement to Grenadier Island.

On the St. Lawrence On 8 October, believing that Wilkinson was about to attack Kingston, Chauncey informed Navy Secretary Jones that In a few days I shall take a position for the purpose of covering the troops in landing near Kingston which I think will induce the British commodore to risk an action in which the supremacy of this lake must be determined.153 The weather did not cooperate. A severe gale and snow kept both the squadron, including the General Pike, and Wilkinson’s army at Sackets Harbor until 16 October. That day the General Pike left to sail to the Genesee River at the request of Secretary of War John Armstrong to collect Colonel Winfield Scott and his men and transport them to Sackets Harbor. Chauncey had barely left Black River Bay when he received a message from Secretary Armstrong. Instead of transporting Scott and his men, Armstrong now wanted Chauncey to cover Wilkinson’s movement from Sackets Harbor to Grenadier Island. Complying with that request, on 17 October the General Pike and the rest of Chauncey’s squadron took a position off the Ducks Islands. From there, for about a week the General Pike and other vessels in the squadron reconnoitered the shore of the various islands at the east end of Lake Ontario to recover the soldiers who became stranded there on their way to Grenadier Island due to the high winds and stormy weather.154 On 25 October, with the General Pike still at anchor off the Ducks Islands, the weather became so bad that small boat communications with the shore became nearly impossible. Consequently Chauncey remained unaware of the status of Wilkinson’s army on Grenadier Island or when that army was planning to move towards its “ultimate destination,” which Chauncey still believed to be Kingston.155 The weather continued to be a serious problem, as Chauncey reported to Secretary Jones: The weather at this season is extremely boisterous and has several times drove us from our anchorage and brought us to close reefed sails, and really would render the small vessels of the squadron of but little use in case of any actual operations against the enemy during the continuance of such weather.156 Chauncey was concerned that these conditions would prevent his conducting a successful amphibious assault on the fortifications and naval base at Kingston. On 29 October Chauncey

151 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Gazette, 13 October 1813. The same report also appeared in other papers, including Boston, Massachusetts, The Yankee, 15 October 1813. 152 Carthage, Tennessee, Carthage Gazette, 15 October 1813. 153 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #92, 8 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 6 item 146, M125 roll 31. 154 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #98, 23 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 32, M125 roll 32. 155 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #99, 25 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 44, M125 roll 32. 156 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #99, 25 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 44, M125 roll 32.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 35 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 visited General Wilkinson on Grenadier Island, at Wilkinson’s request, to plan for the attack. There Chauncey was “much disappointed and mortified” to discover that Wilkinson was not planning to attack Kingston at all. Instead, he wanted to take his army down the St. Lawrence River and attack Montreal. Chauncey realized that the General Pike and the rest of his squadron Had been used as a mere attendant upon the Army for the purpose of transport and protection and when it could be no longer used for those purposes and the season too far advanced to cruise on the lake with safety it is left to protect itself in the best manner it can without the possibility of participating in any enterprize against the enemy this season.157 For the second time in 1813, Chauncey’s willingness to help the army had prevented him from accomplishing his own objectives.158 Disgusted, Chauncey complained to Secretary Jones that during the many meetings between him, Wilkinson and Army Secretary Armstrong during the past few weeks it was always Kingston that was to be the focus of the attack. Chauncey warned Jones of the danger to Wilkinson’s army by leaving the Kingston garrison intact in its rear while it moved downriver towards Montreal.159 All to no avail. For Wilkinson it was onward to Montreal. Chauncey did agree to do his best to protect Wilkinson’s army. Consequently, and much against his better judgment, the General Pike and the rest of the squadron entered the St. Lawrence River on 2 November and anchored off the east end of Long (now Wolfe) Island. Chauncey hoped Wilkinson would get his army below Prescott by 6 October after which Chauncey would “use every exertion to get out of the river as soon as possible.”160 Wilkinson’s army left French Creek (now Clayton, New York) on 5 November and moved down the St. Lawrence River. That same day Yeo’s squadron appeared in the river and anchored about five miles from the General Pike and separated by a “chain of small islands connected by reefs of rocks.” Chauncey planned to lighten his ships enough to pass through the islands but the following day, before he could do so, Yeo’s force disappeared. Unknown to Chauncey, British Captain William Howe Mulcaster, who commanded the Royal George during the “Burlington Races” on 28 September, was now commanding a gunboat flotilla. Yeo’s ships kept Chauncey’s attention while Mulcaster’s gunboats slipped past and went down the St. Lawrence River.161 By focusing his attention on Yeo’s large ships and allowing Mulcaster’s gunboats to proceed unmolested Chauncey had failed to protect Wilkinson’s army. Chauncey believed that it was too hazardous to allow any of his squadron to sail further down the river. In fact, there was nothing preventing his smaller vessels from doing so, as Master Commandant Woolsey demonstrated after the war when he sailed the Lady of the Lake downriver as far as Ogdensburg.162 Had Chauncey dispatched a few of his armed merchant schooners, which

157 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #101, 30 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 63, M125 roll 32. 158 The first was after the American attack on Fort George on 27 May 1813, when Chauncey, though fearing for the safety of his base at Sackets Harbor and wanting to return there as soon as possible, agreed to remain at Niagara for some time at the request of Major General Henry Dearborn. Dearborn asked Chauncey to provide naval support and protection for his army and its operations. Once he learned of the 29 May British attack on Sackets Harbor he was sorry he had agreed to stay. 159 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #101, 30 October 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 63, M125 roll 32. 160 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #105, 4 November 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 76, M125 roll 32. 161 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #106, 11 November 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 93, M125 roll 32. Mulcaster’s gunboats would harass the rear of Wilkinson’s army for several days and their presence contributed to the American defeat at Crysler’s Farm. 162 Melancthon Woolsey to Navy Commissioners, 16 September 1815, NCLRC.

Page 36 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 by now he knew would be of little value to him in a fight with Yeo, downriver to follow Wilkinson’s army, he could have blocked Mulcaster’s movement and provided some real support to Wilkinson. Unaware of Mulcaster’s gunboats, Yeo’s sudden departure caused Chauncey to fear that the British would return to Kingston, take on board troops no longer needed for its defense, and move to capture Carleton Island “which would have given us much trouble, and perhaps led to the final destruction of the Fleet.”163 Accordingly, on 9 November the General Pike moved upriver to Carleton Island and later to Gravelly Point (now Cape Vincent, New York) to watch for Yeo. There the General Pike remained until 11 November when the threatening arrival of bad weather caused Chauncey to return to Sackets Harbor. When he arrived Chauncey found a request from Army Secretary Armstrong that he take the General Pike and the rest of his squadron to Niagara, collect General Lewis Cass’s brigade and return with them to Sackets Harbor. Despite his fears that the onset of winter weather would make the trip extremely hazardous, Chauncey promptly sailed for Niagara, arriving there safely on 15 November. Unfortunately the “heavy sea” present at the time prevented the General Pike from entering the Niagara River, leaving her anchored in the lake, a dangerous position in bad weather. The danger was made clear the same night they arrived when the armed merchant schooner Governor Tompkins collided with the General Pike, carrying away the schooner’s main mast. The Pike herself suffered little damage but the schooner had to remain at Niagara until a temporary mast could be fitted.164 The next day, Chauncey received Major General William Henry Harrison and his suite on board the General Pike and the other vessels of his squadron took on board some 1,100 troops. The General Pike was ready to sail that same day but once again Mother Nature had other ideas. A gale force wind from the east sprang up accompanied by heavy rains mixed with snow. This kept the General Pike at anchor off Niagara until the night of 19 November when the wind shifted to the west and the squadron was able to sail. Although the stormy weather continued, the Pike arrived safely at Sackets Harbor the following evening.165

Winter 1813-1814 By 25 November it was clear to Chauncey that “the Season is too far advanced for any further operations upon the lake.”166 Chauncey then began to prepare his squadron for the winter. By 2 December the General Pike had her topmasts down, her sails and running rigging removed and stored onshore and her deck covered. She was anchored inside the harbor where she would remain until spring. As Chauncey reported to Secretary Jones, the squadron as a whole Is moored in two lines at right angles with each other, so that each line is calculated to support the other and also to afford protection to the block houses, situated on the two sides of the harbor.167

163 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #106, 11 November 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 93, M125 roll 32. 164 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #110, 15 November 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 106, M125 roll 32. 165 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #111, 21 November 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 114, M125 roll 32. 166 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #114, 25 November 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 7 item 128, M125 roll 32. 167 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #127 and #138, 11 and 24 December 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 8 items 38 and 101, M125 roll 33,

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 37 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

With his fleet now safe, Chauncey left for a trip to New York City and Washington, leaving the squadron and the naval station under the command of Master Commandant William Crane and the General Pike “with a full crew of fine fellows” under the temporary command of Lieutenant John A. Pettigrew.168 For the most part the General Pike spent the winter tranquilly at anchor. In early March 1814 seaman Thomas Smith gave himself up as a deserter from the Atlantic frigate United States. Chauncey confined him on board the General Pike and informed his former captain, Stephen Decatur, as well as Secretary Jones. This situation was new to Chauncey and he asked Jones how he should handle deserters like Smith who gave themselves up voluntarily.169 Jones advised Chauncey to wait to hear from Decatur and Be governed by his account of the general conduct of the culprit. In the mean time it will be well to let him return to duty.170 At the same time Chauncey had to deal with a request for a letter of recommendation for one of the General Pike’s boatswain’s mates, Dennis M. Hogan. Hogan’s influential brother-in-law, a friend of former Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, had asked for that recommendation the previous summer but Chauncey was just now getting around to writing it. Chauncey provided the recommendation despite the fact that Hogan had left the General Pike and Sackets Harbor itself without permission and Chauncey had no knowledge of his whereabouts. In a letter separate from the recommendation Chauncey described Hogan as “a fine seaman and a very brave man — but requires more stability for any office higher than the one he held.”171 As was usual during the winter months at Sackets Harbor, the crew’s health suffered considerably. Between December 1813 and April 1814 the General Pike lost one quarter gunner, seven seamen and four ordinary seamen dead from disease. Pilot Archibald Montgomery also died on 30 January 1814.172 Based on his demonstrated lack of knowledge of important portions of the British side the lake, especially that of Amherst Bay after the action off the Genesee River, Montgomery’s death was not a major loss. The General Pike would be without a pilot throughout 1814 without any recorded difficulty. Illness, disease and death were not unique to the General Pike, they were squadron-wide that winter. The Pike’s experience was actually better than the average, as Chauncey reported to Secretary Jones in early March: We seldom have less that 20 percent of our whole number sick and sometimes 30 percent. — within three days we have buried seven Marines out of a corps of 180 and have this day on the sick report of the same corps 40 and our seamen in nearly the same proportion.173 Despite the snow and cold weather, three hardy members of the General Pike’s crew successfully deserted that winter. Seamen Benjamin Smith and John Sherwood scampered off on 8 January

168 Isaac Chauncey to William M. Crane and John A. Pettigrew, both 25 December 1813, CLB 5. 169 Isaac Chauncey to Stephen Decatur, 11 March 1814, CLB 5; Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #17, 11 March 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 2 item 34, M125 roll 35. 170 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 20 March 1814, SNPLB, pp.117-118. 171 Isaac Chauncey to A. C. Cazenave, 11 March 1814, CLB 5. 172 General Pike’s Pay Roll, 21 May 1814, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 15 pp.28-54. 173 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #14, 7 March 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 2 item 20, M125 roll 35.

Page 38 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 and Boy William Martin followed on 27 January.174 There were certainly a number of unrecorded but unsuccessful attempts to desert but those men avoided a court martial, probably because they were caught before they even got out of the village.

A Commanding Problem On 24 July 1813, while commanding the General Pike, Master Commandant Arthur Sinclair was promoted to captain.175 When he arrived at Sackets Harbor the previous June he was upset to find that the Pike was to be Commodore Chauncey’s flagship and he “was consequently to lose the command of the Ship which had been held out to me as an inducement to leave the Atlantic.” After his promotion he complained to Navy Secretary Jones that the General Pike was not a ship worthy of his new rank and asked Jones “to place me on one such as you may think consistent with my Rank.” 176 As Captain Sinclair believed the General Pike was a ship sloop and not a frigate, he was confident that Jones would recognize his situation and take immediate steps to correct it. So confident that he wrote to his brother-in-law, John Hartwell Cocke, that A sloop of war being, now, below my grade and particularly as the commodore has changed his pendant to this ship, I am in hourly expectation of being ordered to the command of one of the new frigates.”177 He was to be very disappointed. Secretary Jones informed Sinclair that The General Pike is, in all respects, a captain’s command; and it is very natural for the commodore to hoist his pendant on board the best ship in the fleet. Jones went further, telling Sinclair that As to the terms, or inducements, you intimate to have been held out to you, or the particular manner in which you were ordered to the General Pike, it must be the result of your own imagination.178 Jones concluded by telling Sinclair that “At present there is no suitable command for you elsewhere.” Sinclair remained on board the Pike but he was not a happy man. Although he respected Chauncey, he chafed at the restrictions placed upon him by Chauncey’s presence, as he reported to his brother-in-law after the action with Yeo’s squadron on 28 September: How unfortunate it is that I have the flag onboard my ship, I should have done quite as much, and indeed more, without it.179 Sinclair continued to believe that he was assigned to a ship beneath his rank, but he was willing to reluctantly accept the situation: The rank I now hold in service entitles me to a frigate and nothing less, but I will even suffer this degradation of remaining where I am, until we either destroy the enemy of exhaust the season.180

174 General Pike’s Pay Roll, 21 May 1814, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 15 pp.28-54. 175 Service Records, p.153. 176 Arthur Sinclair to William Jones, 23 August 1813, SNLRC, 1813 vol 5 item 140, M125 roll 30. 177 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 25 August 1813, Robert Malcomson, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.51. 178 William Jones to Arthur Sinclair, 16 September 1813, SNLSO, vol 11 p.90, M149 roll 11. 179 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 10 October 1813, Robert Malcomson, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.63.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 39 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

In this, of course, Sinclair was wrong. He would remain with the General Pike as long as he was ordered to do so by Secretary Jones. His only alternative was to resign his commission. Fortunately there is no indication in any of Chauncey’s communications that Sinclair’s performance suffered as the result of his obvious unhappiness. Finally, on 14 December 1813 with the sailing season now over on the lake, Sinclair requested and Chauncey gave him permission to go to Washington and ask Secretary Jones for new orders, hopefully “a command on the Atlantic correspondent to your wishes.”181 Sinclair’s arrival at Washington, however, was delayed many weeks by a severe attack of gout.182 This was probably unfortunate because by the time he finally met with Jones, the secretary had decided to make the upper Great Lakes a separate command and he gave that post to Captain Sinclair who was conveniently available.183 Arthur Sinclair commanded on the upper Great Lakes for the rest of the war. In November 1815 he finally got an Atlantic assignment, being appointed to command the frigate Constitution. Unfortunately illness prevented him from actually taking up that command. He finally got to sea as captain of the frigate Congress but not until 1817. He died in 1831.184

A New Crew In early March 1814 Commodore Chauncey received the pleasant news that Congress and the president had increased the pay for officers and man serving on the lakes by 25%.185 He hoped that increase would make service on the lakes more appealing. In this, however, he would be disappointed. Lake service remained as unpopular as ever. Even with the additional pay, Chauncey remained worried about the number and quality of his officers and men: We ought then certainly to meet [the British] on equal terms by having our vessels commanded by officers of talents and experience and manned by men who have all been disciplined.186 On 6 April 1814, Captain Jacob Jones and the crew of the frigate Macedonian were ordered from New London, Connecticut to join Chauncey at Sackets Harbor where they arrived on 24 May.187 Chauncey then moved the crew of the General Pike to the new frigate Superior and gave the Pike to Jones and his men. Those men spent little time on board their new ship. The man appointed to the command of the new 42-gun frigate Mohawk, Captain John Smith, became too ill to take up that post or even to reach Sackets Harbor. On 9 July Chauncey ordered Captain Jones and his crew to move to the Mohawk. He then ordered the crew of the Madison including her captain, Master Commandant

180 Arthur Sinclair to John Hartwell Cocke, 10 October 1813, Robert Malcomson, ed., Sailors of 1812 (Youngstown NY: Old Fort Niagara Association, 1997) p.64. 181 Isaac Chauncey to Arthur Sinclair, 14 December 1813, CLB 5. 182 Arthur Sinclair to William Jones, 17 January 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 1 item 40, M125 roll 40. 183 William Jones to Arthur Sinclair, 7 April 1814, SNPLB pp.120-121. 184 Service Records, p.154 (Sinclair). 185 William Jones to William Bainbridge and to Isaac Chauncey, 25 February 1814, SNPLB pp,100-101. 186 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #19, 15 March 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 2 item 47, Ma125 roll 35. 187 William Jones to Samuel Evans, 10 April 1814, SNLSC, T829 roll 176 p.41; Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #81, 24 May 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 3 item 100, M125 roll 36.

Page 40 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

William Crane, to move to the General Pike.188 Command of the Madison was then given to Master Commandant Edward Trenchard.189 Chauncey’s squadron sailed for the first time in 1814 with the General Pike’s crew as shown in Table 14. The Pike’s crew was considerably smaller than in 1813 but still larger than was usual for her size: four instead of five lieutenants, seven midshipmen instead of 14 and 195 seamen and ordinary seamen instead of 245. The total on board as of 1 August 1814 was 246 officers and men instead of the 336 men of the year before. Rank Number Rank Number Boatswain (Knapp) 1 Master Commandant (Crane) 1 Boatswain’s Mates 2 Master’s Mates (Gelstone, Mackey, 3 Sheffield) Boys 4 Midshipmen (Caldwell, Dunham, 7 Ellery, Freeman, Lacey, Shute, Stewart Carpenter (Mott) 1 Ordinary Seamen 100 Carpenter’s Mates 2 Purser (Fitzgerald) 1 Carpenter’s Yeoman 1 Quarter Gunners 7 Chaplain (Sands) 1 Quartermasters 8 Cook 1 Sailing Masters (Lowe, Vaughan) 2 Cooper (Thompson) 1 Sailmaker (Ware) 1 Coxswain 1 Seamen 95 Gunner (Johnson) 1 Surgeon (Salter) 1 Lieutenants (Adams, Finch, 4 TOTAL 246 Oellers, Taylor) Table 14 – The General Pike’s Crew as of 1 August 1814 from Pay Roll, 31 May 1815, NAUS, RG45, T829 roll 15 pp.5-18. The General Pike’s new captain, 38 year old Master Commandant William Crane, received his midshipman’s warrant in 1799, was appointed an acting lieutenant in 1803 and received his commission in 1807. He was promoted to master commandant in March 1813. Before arriving at Sackets Harbor, Crane had served on board the frigates United States, Chesapeake and President and the brig Vixen. He commanded the schooner Nautilus, the brig Argus and served as temporary commandant of he Boston and New York navy yards.190 In the summer of 1813 he was appointed to command the corvette William Montgomery Crane Madison. He was an able and experienced officer. The General Pike’s first lieutenant in 1814 was William Bolton Finch who in 1833 changed his name to William Compton Bolton. Finch became a midshipman in 1806, an acting lieutenant in 1811 and was commissioned in January 1813. Before joining the crew of the Madison at Sackets Harbor in July he served on board the Wasp, Essex and John Adams. He also commanded the

188 A View of the American Squadron on Lake Ontario, 24 June 1814, AF, M625 roll 77 frames 9-10. This report shows John Smith as captain of the Mohawk and Jacob Jones commanding the General Pike; Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #123, 8 July 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 4 item 160, M125 roll 37; Isaac Chauncey to Jacob Jones and to William Crane, 9 July 1814, CLB 6; 189 Isaac Chauncey to Edward Trenchard, 9 July 1814, CLB 6. 190 Service Records, pp.61-63 (Crane).

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 41 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 armed merchant schooner Governor Tompkins. He was transferred from the Madison to the Pike on 10 July 1814.191 Second lieutenant was James P. Oellers. Born in Pennsylvania, Oellers began his naval career as a sailing master in February 1809, became an acting lieutenant in March 1813 and was commissioned a lieutenant on 24 July 1813, number 8 on the list. He served on board the frigate Congress and the corvette Madison at Sackets Harbor before being transferred to the General Pike on 1 July 1814.192 The General Pike’s third lieutenant was Samuel W. Adams, age 31. Born in New Hampshire, while in the merchant service Adams was impressed into a Royal Navy warship and served three years there before proving his American citizenship and being released. Consequently he joined the navy as a midshipman in 1808 at the advanced age of 25. Isaac Chauncey appointed him an acting lieutenant at Sackets Harbor in November 1812 and he received his lieutenant’s commission on 24 July 1813, number 19 on the list. Before arriving at Sackets Harbor he served on board the frigates Constitution and President and on board Gunboat No. 43. At Sackets Harbor he commanded the armed merchant schooner Pert and later served on board the Madison before being ordered to the General Pike in July 1814. Adams would serve at Sackets Harbor until 1826 when the naval station was closed.193 The Pike’s junior lieutenant was Dugomier Taylor who became a midshipman in 1809 and was commissioned a lieutenant on 24 July 1813, number 22 on the list. In 1812 Taylor served on board the frigate United States and participated in the battle with the British frigate Macedonian afterwards sharing the $200,000 prize money awarded for her capture.194 He arrived on board the General Pike on 10 July 1814.195 Overall the General Pike’s lieutenants in 1814 were an average lot. Finch ended his naval career in 1849 as a commodore and Adams as a master commandant. Oellers and Taylor were never promoted beyond lieutenant. Date of Ordered to Midshipman’s Name Age Warrant General Pike Salt Water Service Great Lakes Service Lacey, Charles 1809.01.16 1814.07.01 John Adams Madison Stewart, Richard 1809.11.15 1814.07.01 Nautilus, John Madison Adams Caldwell, Charles H. 1811.09.01 1814.07.01 John Adams Black Rock, Asp, Madison Freeman, Edgar 25 1811.06.09 1814.07.01 Hornet, John Adams Madison Dunham, Peleg K. 20 1812.01.01 1814.07.01 Gunboats Lawrence (Battle of Lake Erie), Madison Shute, John Blanchard 18 1813.04.16 1814.07.01 John Adams Madison Ellery, Charles 1814.03.08 1814.07.01 None Madison Table 15 – The General Pike’s Midshipmen as of 1 August 1814 by Date of Warrant from Pay Roll, 31 May 1815, NAUS, RG45, T829 roll 15 pp.5-18 and Service Records.

191 Service Records, pp.74-76 (Finch). 192 Service Records, pp.130-131 (Oellers). 193 Service Records, p.27 (Adams). 194 ASP, pp.425-426. 195 Service Records, p.166 (Taylor).

Page 42 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

The senior midshipman, Charles Lacey, had held that rank for five and a half years. Most of his peers who remained in the navy had already been commissioned a lieutenant. Lacey would not receive his commission until March 1817. Many midshipmen who received their warrants as late as December 1812 ended the war as acting lieutenants. While there is nothing in his record to explain the unusual length of time he spent as a midshipman during the war, Lacey’s performance must have been just barely acceptable. Otherwise, given the demand for officers at Sackets Harbor particularly in 1814, Chauncey would have promoted him.196 Fifth in seniority based on the date of his warrant, Peleg Dunham had more combat experience than any officer on board the General Pike except Captain Crane and Lieutenant Taylor. Dunham was part of the General Pike’s 1813 crew but was transferred to Erie, Pennsylvania where he was on board Oliver Hazard Perry’s flagship Lawrence during the Battle of Lake Erie. He had the very good fortune to escape from that bloody battle unharmed. He also returned to the Pike $811.35 richer from the prize money awarded him for his part in the capture of the entire British squadron on that lake.197 The junior man, Charles Ellery, was as new a midshipman as William Carpender had been in 1813. Like Carpender, it would take time for Ellery to become experienced enough to be useful. Unlike many midshipmen at Sackets Harbor during the war, these men did not have a bright future in the navy. Only five of the seven attained the rank of lieutenant. None went any higher. One, Shute, died in a duel in 1818 and another, Ellery, was dismissed from the navy by a court martial in 1830.198 Overall, the quality of the General Pike’s officers in 1814 was a step down from that of 1813 but still quite adequate to meet the demands of the service, especially under a captain as able as William Crane.

Operations in 1814 In mid-March 1814 Commodore Chauncey reported to the Navy Department that the General Pike, now fully armed with 26 broadside and two pivot-mounted 24-pound cannon, would be ready for sea as soon as the ice was gone from the harbor.199 Chauncey’s hopes for an early spring that year were not fulfilled. On 8 April Chauncey reported to Secretary Jones

196 Service Records, p.106 (Lacey). 197 Service Records, pp.69-70 (Dunham). His Lake Erie prize money was more than two years’ salary for a midshipman. 198 Service Records, pp.70 (Ellery) & 152-153 (Shute). 199 A View of the American Squadron on Lake Ontario as they are contemplated to be fitted under the new arrangement for the next Summer, 15 March 1814, AF, M625 roll 76 frames 557-558. It is certain that the gun that burst in September 1813 and the four others found with cracks had been replaced by spring 1814 and two additional 24-pound cannon mounted, but where they came from remains unclear. There were presumably only 30 of the lightweight 24-pound cannon ex-Constitution guns, and 26 of them were in use in 1813. Only four of the five of those that were destroyed or damaged could have been replaced from that source. The fifth and the two additional broadside 24-pounders completing the 28 on board must have come from elsewhere and were likely the standard, longer, 24-pounder.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 43 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

The weather has however been much against us in the course of the last forty eight hours — there has been about 15 inches of snow fell.200 This was important because it was delaying Henry Eckford’s shipbuilding efforts. With the British having the 56-gun frigate Prince Regent and the 42-gun Princess Charlotte in service, Chauncey’s own strongest vessel, the General Pike, was now outclassed. He needed his own new ships, particularly the 58-gun large frigate Superior, to be in service before he could successfully challenge Yeo for control of the lake. The weather, however, “has rendered the roads almost impassable and retards the work upon the ship.”201 Towards the end of March Chauncey received an application from Captain Samuel Archer of the Third Artillery to accompany him the coming summer as a volunteer. Archer had been on board the General Pike with a mortar crew during the 11 September 1813 action off the Genesee River and Chauncey had been pleased with his performance. Chauncey wrote to Secretary of War John Armstrong asking permission for Archer to serve on board his ship, a request Armstrong granted. Archer and men from his company then joined the General Pike along with a howitzer “for the purpose of throwing live shells at a point blank range.”202 Later, Archer and some of his men transferred to the armed merchant schooner Governor Tompkins, although it is not known if the howitzer accompanied them. Some of Archer’s men were apparently left on board the Pike. Until the Superior was ready, Chauncey was prepared to challenge the British so long as their new ships were not present. This he considered doing when, on 6 May, he heard that the British were off Oswego and preparing to attack. I have sent my Gig over to Kingston to ascertain whether the two new ships are out with the fleet — if they are not, I shall sail tomorrow morning to meet the enemy with the General Pike Madison Jefferson Sylph and Oneida.203 Chauncey ordered the General Pike to be ready to sail immediately but the effort went for naught. He received word that the new British frigates were present at Oswego and he decided “not to risk an action with such disparity of force.”204 The General Pike returned to her previous state of inactivity. On 8 June the General Pike went to sea for the first time that year. Departing Sackets Harbor at 9 a.m. that morning along with the Jefferson, Madison, Sylph and Oneida, she spent five hours maneuvering on Lake Ontario, returning to Sackets Harbor at 2 p.m.205 Apparently her performance during this exercise was satisfactory as no subsequent changes were made to her configuration or armament. The General Pike remained at Sackets Harbor, anchored in Black River Bay and idle, for the next two months. Chauncey was waiting for all his new vessels, the frigates Superior and Mohawk and the brigs Jefferson and Jones to be ready for service before he was willing to leave Sackets Harbor. Although the last ship, the Mohawk, was launched on 11 June, she would take an unusual length of time, over a month, before she would be fully equipped and ready to sail.206 Sailing was

200 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #35, 8 April 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 2 item 101, M125 roll 35. 201 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #35, 8 April 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 2 item 101, M125 roll 35. 202 Isaac Chauncey to John Armstrong, 22 March 1814, CLB 5. 203 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #63, 6 May 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 3 item 26, M125 roll 36. 204 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #64, 7 May 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 3 item 28, M125 roll 36. 205 Dudley, entry for 8 June 1814. 206 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #97, SNLRC, 11 June 1814, 1814 vol 4 item 62, M125 roll 37.

Page 44 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 then further delayed when Chauncey became too ill to command and declined allowing his squadron to sail under his second in command, Captain Jacob Jones. The squadron did not sail for the first time in 1814 until 1 August. This delay led to an acrimonious exchange of letters between Chauncey and the army commander on the Niagara Frontier, Major General Jacob Brown. Brown believed he had Chauncey’s assurance that he would provide Brown with naval support at Niagara no later than early July and Brown planned his campaign accordingly. When Chauncey failed to appear as promised, relations between the two men quickly deteriorated. Chauncey insisted that his primary objective was the destruction of Yeo’s squadron and now he would only take his squadron to Niagara if Yeo went there. Furthermore, his illness had prevented him from keeping Navy Secretary Jones informed of the status of things at Sackets Harbor for several weeks. Jones, concerned, ordered Captain Stephen Decatur to Sackets Harbor to replace Chauncey and it was only Chauncey’s last-minute sailing on 1 August that preserved his command. The difficulties with Brown were the result of Chauncey’s unpleasant experiences in 1813 providing support to Dearborn and Wilkinson’s armies. He was not going to allow this to happen again in 1814 but his intransigence almost cost him his command.207 When the General Pike sailed from Sackets Harbor for the first time on the morning of 2 August 1814 her destination, along with the rest of the squadron, was Niagara. Unfortunately early that afternoon the General Pike ran aground off Point Peninsula. Chauncey’s flagship Superior sailed there, inspected her condition then rejoined the rest of his squadron off Stoney Island where they had anchored for the night. The squadron then dispatched boats to the Pike and with their aid she was refloated without damage before midnight.208 The next day the Pike and the rest of the squadron resumed their voyage to Niagara but due to light winds it took five days for them to arrive. As she approached the Niagara River on 5 August she sighted the British brig Magnet on course for the same location. Chauncey, with his flag on board the Superior, ordered the Lady of the Lake and the Sylph to intercept and capture the brig. The crew of the General Pike could only watch as the Magnet’s captain, to keep her and her cargo of gunpowder out of the hands of the Americans, ran her on shore about four miles west of the river and set her on fire after which she violently exploded.209 This was the closest thing to a battle the General Pike would experience that year. Shortly afterwards, wanting to locate Yeo’s squadron, Chauncey left two of his brigs at Niagara to watch three British warships anchored in the river and took the General Pike and the rest of his squadron east to Kingston, arriving by 10 August. There he found the rest of the British squadron in port, where they would remain until their new 102-gun ship-of-the-line St. Lawrence was ready for service in October. Chauncey then anchored his squadron off the Ducks Islands, a position that allowed him to blockade Kingston, preventing the British warships or any vessels carrying stores, provisions or troops from leaving Kingston without being seen and engaged.

207 The issues between Brown, Jones, Decatur and Chauncey are documented extensively by both letters and newspaper articles at the time, including: Jacob Brown to Isaac Chauncey, 13 July 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 5 item 87, M125 roll 38; William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 20 and 24 July, 5 August 1814, SNPLB, pp.170-172, 178; William Jones to Stephen Decatur, 28 July and 5 August 1814, SNPLB, pp.173-175, 177- 178; Stephen Decatur to William Jones, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 10 August 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 5 items 57, 62, 63, 75 and 83, M125 roll 38; Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #132 and #133 and to Jacob Brown, 10 August 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 5 items 84, 85 and 87; M125 roll 38. 208 Woolsey Journal 7 and Dudley, entries for 1 and 2 August 1814. 209 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #132, 10 August 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 5 item 84, M125 roll 38.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 45 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

In August 1814, the captains of the armed merchant schooners Julia and Growler, taken by the British on 10 August 1813, returned to Sackets Harbor. On 1 September, while still at sea off the Ducks Islands, Commodore Chauncey ordered that a court of inquiry be convened on board the General Pike with the Pike’s captain, William Crane, as president to inquire into the circumstances involved in the loss of those schooners.210 The court convened the next day and took testimony from Lieutenant David Deacon, captain of the Growler, Sailing Master James Trant, captain of the Julia and other officers and men. The court concluded that the loss of the two schooners “was unavoidable.”211 Of course once the two schooners had turned away from Chauncey’s main column instead of towards it, their capture by the British did, indeed, become unavoidable. The court took only the briefest testimony and made no statement as to the reasons why the schooners made that wrong turn. Had that action been explored more fully by the court some significant testimony criticizing Chauncey himself and his night battle plan would likely have become part of the official record, which, it appears, everyone wished to avoid. On 7 September Chauncey ordered captains John Pettigrew of the Governor Tompkins and Crane of the Pike to return army Captain Samuel Archer and any of his men who were left on board their vessels to Sackets Harbor. Although the record is silent on the reason, it is probable that with the British unwilling to leave Kingston there would be little opportunity that year for Archer to make use of his short range bomb-throwing howitzer. He and his men would be more useful as part of the garrison defending Sackets Harbor.212 For the next two weeks the General Pike remained part of the squadron blockading Kingston. She then returned to Sackets Harbor, took on board troops from Major General George Izard’s army and, on 21 September, sailed with the rest of Chauncey’s squadron for the mouth of the Genesee River, arriving there the following morning. After disembarking the troops she returned to Sackets Harbor on 24 September. Five days later, now resupplied, the General Pike was back off the Ducks Islands blockading Kingston.213 With the British 102-gun St. Lawrence almost ready for service, the General Pike broke off blockading Kingston and returned to Sackets Harbor with the rest of Chauncey’s squadron on 7 October 1814. Ten days later the Sylph returned from a reconnaissance with news that the entire British squadron had left Kingston and were “near the Ducks Islands formed in a line of battle.”214 Now badly outgunned, the sailing season for the General Pike and the rest of Chauncey’s squadron was over for 1814.

Winter 1814-1815 As was now an annual event with the squadron idle in port and winter approaching, Commodore Chauncey received a number of requests from his officers asking to be allowed to leave the station for the winter or permanently. One such man was the General Pike’s purser, Edward Fitzgerald, who at least offered an uncommon reason for wanting leave – he wished to get

210 Isaac Chauncey to William Crane, 1 September 1814, CLB 6. 211 Proceedings of a Court of Inquiry into the loss of the Julia and Growler, 3 September 1814, Records of General Courts Martial and Courts of Inquiry of the Navy Department, 1799-1867, Volume 5 case 171, M273 roll 7. 212 Isaac Chauncey to John Pettigrew and William Crane, 7 September 1814, CLB 6. 213 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #161, 24 September 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 6 item 95, M125 roll 39. 214 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #180, 17 October 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 7 item 46, M125 roll 40.

Page 46 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 married, after which he promised to return to duty at Sackets Harbor “with a new alacrity.”215 His request was approved by Secretary Jones on 19 November. A week later, three days before he received that approval in the mail, Fitzgerald asked the Navy Department, by way of Senator Jonathan Roberts, for a permanent transfer to the Atlantic as purser on board the frigate United States.216 In December he was ordered to report to the Navy Department in Washington for further orders. Unfortunately Fitzgerald lacked the funds to pay for the trip. He wrote to the Navy Department at the beginning of January 1815 that he hoped to be able to leave Sackets Harbor by 14 January.217 It is not known what effect, if any, the lengthy delay had on his marriage plans, but his honeymoon, if he had one, was brief. With the war over and seamen being transferred to the Atlantic, Chauncey asked that Secretary Crowninshield order Fitzgerald back to Sackets Harbor to bring the General Pike’s accounts up to date.218 Crowninshield complied and Fitzgerald returned to Sackets Harbor, settled the Pike’s accounts and was probably happy to be ordered to Boston on 15 April 1815.219 Another officer on his way out of Sackets Harbor was the General Pike’s fourth lieutenant, Dugomier Taylor. This time the orders originated with the president, James Madison. Lieutenant Taylor’s father, James Taylor, wrote Madison asking that his son be ordered to Washington so he would be available to deal with some serious family financial matters based, reportedly, on the elder Taylor’s “Republican principles.”220 Madison complied, the Navy Department issued the order and Lieutenant Taylor left Sackets Harbor on 1 January 1815. On 7 January 1815, Taylor was replaced as the General Pike’s fourth lieutenant by George Pearce. Pearce became a midshipman in 1806, an acting lieutenant in 1812 and received his commission on 24 July 1813, number 23 on the list, just junior to Taylor. Before arriving on board the Pike, Pearce had served on board the frigates Chesapeake, Constitution, John Adams and Essex as well as the sloop Hornet. He had been a part of Chauncey’s squadron on Lake Ontario since January 1814, serving on board the Madison, Sylph, Jones and Mohawk.221 The General Pike’s captain, William Montgomery Crane, also applied for a transfer to the Atlantic but before that request could be acted upon he received word of his promotion to captain. Unlike Arthur Sinclair, Crane apparently did not believe that the General Pike was a command

215 Jonathan Roberts to William Jones, 16 November 1814, William Jones Papers, Pennsylvania Historical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 216 Edward Fitzgerald to Jonathan Roberts and Roberts to Benjamin Homans, 26 November and 6 December 1814, SNLRM, 1814 vol 8 item 60, M124 roll 67. 217 Edward Fitzgerald to Benjamin Homans, 9 January 1815, SNLRO, 1815 vol 1 item 15, M148 roll 14. 218 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 8 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 23, M125 roll 43. 219 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Isaac Chauncey, 20 March 1815, SNLSO, vol 12 p.71, M149 roll 12; Circular to Pursers, 15 April 1815, CLB 7, p.70. 220 James Taylor to James Madison, 20 December 1814, SNLSM, 1814 vol 8 item 101, M124 roll 67. 221 Service Records, pp.136-137 (Pearce).

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 47 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 beneath his new rank as he remained her captain, apparently without complaint, until after the war.222 In addition to the General Pike’s officers departing, many of the crew’s enlistments had expired or were about to.223 Lieutenant Samuel W. Adams was ordered by Chauncey to open a rendezvous at Sackets Harbor to recruit men for the General Pike. Although the war ended before enough time elapsed to judge how successful Adams would be, it is highly unlikely he would have recruited many men. He had too much competition. At the same time Adams received his orders, Lieutenants John Henry Bell and Charles Skinner received orders from Chauncey to open their own rendezvous at Sackets Harbor to recruit men for the Jones and Superior respectively.224

Post-War Official word of the end of the war reached Sackets Harbor on 23 February 1815.225 One of the first to take advantage of the reduced need for officers was the General Pike’s second lieutenant, James P. Oellers. Chauncey granted Oellers a furlough on 28 February 1815.226 On 8 March 1815 Commodore Chauncey received orders from Navy Secretary Crowninshield to Strip all the Vessels of your Squadron, and lay them up in Ordinary; the Rigging, Sails, and Stores, of every description will be so arranged, and done up, so as to be ready for transportation to New York.227 Chauncey was also ordered to send the crew of the General Pike, including her marines, to Boston where they would report to Commodore William Bainbridge for service on board the new ships-of-the-line Washington and Independence. Chauncey acknowledged these orders in a letter to Bainbridge on 8 March but moving the frigate’s crew was delayed some time for want of funds. It cost $8.00 per man just to send them from Sackets Harbor to Albany and Chauncey did not have the funds.228 He was forced to ask for a loan of $10,000 from the Utica, New York branch of the Manhattan Bank before the men could be on their way.229 With that accomplished, the transfer began on 20 March with groups of from 50 to 100 men leaving daily for Albany, New York City and then on to Boston.230 By the end of March 1815 the General Pike was crewless and out of service.

222 Crane applied for a transfer on 20 November 1814 and received word of his promotion to captain ten days later, Service Records, p.62 (Crane). 223 Between November 1814 and early February 1815, the enlistments of 16 members of the General Pike crew expired and others would expire by the end of April. General Pike’s Pay Roll, 31 May 1815, NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 15 pp.5-18. 224 Isaac Chauncey to Samuel W. Adams, John Bell and Charles Skinner, 5 February 1815, CLB 6. 225 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #28, 23 February 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 164, M125 roll 42. 226 General Pike’s Pay Roll, 31 May 1815, NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 15 pp.5-18. 227 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Isaac Chauncey, 25 February 1815, SNLSO, vol 12 p.40, M149 roll 12. 228 Isaac Chauncey to William Bainbridge, 8 March 1815, CLB 6; Isaac Chauncey to William Bolton Finch, 19 March 1813, CLB 7 p.9. 229 Isaac Chauncey to James Kissam (Cashier, Manhattan Bank at Utica), 10 March 1815, CLB 6. 230 Isaac Chauncey to Jonathan Walton & Co., 19 March 1815, CLB 7 p.5.

Page 48 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

With the war now over several of the General Pike’s crew did not wait to be transferred. They deserted, assuming, probably correctly, that little effort would be expended to recapture them. In the first month after the news of peace reached Sackets Harbor three seamen and three ordinary seamen belonging to the General Pike braved the winter weather and successfully made their escape.231 In addition, it is very likely that additional members of the General Pike’s former crew managed to desert on their way to Albany, New York City and Boston but those records remain unchecked. A considerable number of seamen stationed on board the General Pike were African-American. Many were free blacks but others were slaves who were rented by their owners to the navy for a fixed period of time or for the duration of the war. With cotton and tobacco exports hampered by the war, many southern plantations had more slaves than there was work for them to do. One solution was to rent them, as property, to the navy. The slave owner then no longer had to feed, clothe, care for and keep the slave busy plus he received the slave’s enlistment bounty and monthly wages. The navy obtained men who could be moved from ship to ship without complaint and with little risk of desertion, particularly from a remote station such as Lake Ontario. Curiously, the slave himself also benefitted. He received the same food, clothing, living conditions, discipline and even punishment as did the white members of the crew. For probably the first time in his life he was treated pretty much as an equal. In addition, one incident offers the possibility that the navy was also a refuge for escaped slaves. Near the end of April 1815, almost a month after the General Pike’s crew had left Sackets Harbor for Boston, the Accountant of the Navy, Thomas Turner, received a letter from the owner of an escaped slave who was reported as serving on board the General Pike. As Turner wrote to Purser Gwinn Harris General Pike anchored in Sackets Harbor in 1816 at Sackets Harbor: NAC NMC-7637 (detail) Mr James Beck of Fredericksburgh has this day represented to me, that he has understood that a slave of his was lately on board of the General Pike — he run away from him more than a year ago — the following is the description he gave of him — a dark mulatto about 5 feet 5 or 6 inches high, about 26 years of age, thick lips, and bow legged, speaks slow, especially when spoken to quick, by trade a chair maker. Mr Beck has unfortunately lost an arm, has a family to support, and his negro is of great importance to him, will you do me the favour to make the necessary inquiry and let me know if such a negro has been on the station, if he has, whether he continues there or where he has been removed to.232

231 These were Seamen John Young, Thomas Ellison and Nathan Peters and ordinary seamen James Thompson, John Fitzhugh and William Wood. General Pike’s Pay Roll, 31 May 1815, NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 15 pp.5-18. 232 Thomas Turner to Gwinn Harris, 24 April 1815, RAO, E810, p.159.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 49 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

As no name was given and the navy’s muster and pay rolls did not record race, it is impossible to tell from the available records whether Mr. Bell’s slave had been on board the General Pike or not, but if so he was in Boston by the time Harris received Turner’s letter. Harris’ reply to Turner has not yet been found. On 1 July 1815 Isaac Chauncey formally relinquished command of the Sackets Harbor Naval Station to Master Commandant Melancthon Woolsey.233 Woolsey was left with a small staff to maintain the decommissioned warships and to man the few remaining in service. The General Pike herself was left at anchor inside the harbor. On 16 September 1815 Woolsey asked the Navy Commissioners for permission to cover the General Pike with a board roof to preserve her from the elements. This was ordered on 29 September but it did not prevent her slow decay. It was only a matter of time before she would sink to the bottom of the harbor.234 In May 1816 British intelligence correctly reported the state of the General Pike as disarmed and laid up at Sackets Harbor. The report also gave her the ability to carry 28 guns, all 24-pound cannon for a standard broadside of 336 pounds.235 In August 1816 the General Pike was reported to be moored in the cove at Navy Point and Covered with a good board roof, standing rigging triced up under the Orleans shed in a loft made for that purpose running rigging & sails &c tallied and in store, upper works open and from the light water line, two or three streaks up no stuff on.236 In May 1817 the General Pike was reported to be in good condition, covered with a board roof and moored at Navy Point inside the harbor. 237 That same year the Rush-Bagot agreement between the United States and Great Britain severely restricted the number and size of armed vessels on the Great Lakes. It was now unlikely that the General Pike would ever again be placed in service. By 1821 the General Pike was declared “unworthy of repair.”238 Two years later she was reported to Washington as being “sunk and decayed.”239 On 10 January 1824 the Navy Department recommended to Congress that all the warships at Sackets Harbor, except the two incomplete ships-of-the-line, should be sold.240 That November the Board of Navy Commissioners informed

233 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 1 July 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 4 item 50, M125 roll 45. 234 NAUS, RG45, Navy Commissioners, Letters Received, Melancthon Woolsey to Navy Commissioners, 16 September 1815, NCLRC; Letters Sent, John Rodgers to Melancthon Woolsey, 29 September 1815, T829 roll 288 p.50. 235 William Fitz William Owen to Gordon Drummond, 16 May 1816, NAC, RG8, C.674 pp.33-34, roll C- 3171. 236 Melancthon Woolsey to John Rodgers, 15 August 1816, NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 456. 237 Melancthon Woolsey to John Rodgers, 24 May 1817, NAUS, RG45, Entry 220, Letters to Navy Commissioners from Sackets Harbor. 238 “Condition of the Navy and its Expenses”, 25 January 1821, 16th Congress, 2nd Session, American State Papers, Class VI, Naval Affairs, vol 1 No. 196 p.712. 239 S.Doc 1, United States Senate, 18th Congress 1st Session, December 1, 1823. 240 Navy Commissioners Office, 10 January 1824 in S.Doc 30, United States Senate, 18th Congress 1st Session, February 3, 1824; S.Doc 1, United States Senate, 18th Congress 2nd Session, December 1, 1824.

Page 50 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Secretary of the Navy Samuel L. Southard that the General Pike and the other warships in the harbor were Originally built of green timber and now so much decayed as to be deemed unworthy of repair. It is recommended to break them up or dispose of them, and to transport the stores at Sacketts harbour to New York, or sell them, as may be found most advantageous to the public interest.241 On 3 March 1825 Congress passed a law authorizing the sale of these warships.242 Three weeks later, Robert Hugunin of Oswego, New York, offered to buy the eight square-rigged vessels, including the General Pike, for a total price of $8,000, assuring the Navy Department that he would remove the vessels, except possibly the Superior, within eighteen months.243 On 13 April the Navy Department accepted Hugunin’s offer, which may have been the only offer they received.244 Hugunin did his job and by the end of 1826 the General Pike was gone. The General Pike’s standing rigging was sold separately at auction at Sackets Harbor on 1 August 1825 to Thomas S. Hall for $300.00.245 Other parts of the Pike’s furniture and equipment may have been sold on that date or at one of the two subsequent auctions also held at Sackets Harbor that fall.246 Those items, however, were included in lots from various sources and cannot be individually distinguished in the auction reports.

Commanding Officers Name and Rank Dates in Command Master Commandant Arthur Sinclair 11 June 1813 to 14 December 1813 Lieutenant John A. Pettigrew 14 December 1813 to 24 May 1814 Captain Jacob Jones 24 May 1814 9 July 1814 Master Commandant William Crane 9 July 1814 to 24 November 1814 Captain William Crane 24 November 1814 to 25 March 1815

241 John Rodgers to Samuel L. Southard, 20 November 1824, SNLRM, 1824 vol 6 item 127, M124 roll 100. 242 Public Statutes at Large of the USA, Vol 4, 18th Congress 2nd Session, Chapter 101 (Boston: Little & Brown, 1846). S.Doc 2, United States Senate, 19th Congress 1st Session, December 2, 1825. 243 Robert Hugunin to William Bainbridge, 23 March 1825, enclosed with a letter from Lieutenant Samuel W. Adams to Bainbridge, 28 March 1825, NAUS, RG45, Entry 220, Letters to Navy Commissioners from Sackets Harbor. Lt. Adams replaced Melancthon Woolsey as commandant at Sackets Harbor. 244 Samuel W. Adams to William Bainbridge, 9 May 1825, NAUS, RG45, Entry 220, Letters to Navy Commissioners from Sackets Harbor. Adams was acknowledging Bainbridge’s letter of 13 April. 245 Records of auction sales by Auctioneer Hiram Steele, 1 August 1825, NAUS, RG217, 4th Auditor Settled Accounts, Alphabetic Series, Steele, box 2528. 246 Subsequent auctions were held at Sackets Harbor on 10 and 27 October 1825.; NAUS, RG217, 4th Auditor Settled Accounts, Alphabetic Series, Steele, box 2528.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 51 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Charles Ware and the General Pike

Drawing of the General Pike by sailmaker Charles Ware done at the Charlestown (Boston) Navy Yard ca. 1830.

Sailmaker Charles Ware officially joined the General Pike’s crew on 1 July 1814 and left that ship on 25 March 1815 when he was transferred, with most of the Pike’s crew, to the ship-of-the- line Independence at Boston.247 At Boston, Ware was listed in the 1815 Naval Register as an acting sailmaker.248 Ware left the navy before January 1817 but continued to work as a civilian sailmaker at the Charlestown (Boston) naval yard until 1831.249 In 1831 the navy replaced civilians working in the navy yards with warrant officers. Ware was offered a warrant but none is recorded as being issued to him. During the time Ware was at Charlestown, he created a series of at least 25 excellent drawings of the warships, boats, sails, cannon and other items he came in contact with. One of these drawings

247 General Pike’s Pay Roll, 31 May 1815, NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 15 pp.5-18. 248 Naval Register, 7 December 1815, ASP, No. 127 p.372. 249 Ware’s name does not appear in the early 1818 Naval Register, 21 January 1818, ASP, No. 153, p.468. There were no Naval Registers printed in 1816 or 1817. “Charles Ware, Sail-Maker”, American Neptune 4 (1943) pp.367-268 states Ware became a civilian sailmaker at the Charlestown (Boston) navy yard on 9 January 1817 and left on 25 June 1831.

Page 52 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015 depicts the frigate General Pike and it is the only lake warship drawn by Ware as part of this series. Since its creation, this drawing has appeared in almost every book that describes the U. S. Navy during the War of 1812 and in many other, more general, publications on that war. Apparently those authors were unaware of the serious deficiencies in that drawing. These are summarized below with reference to the numbers and annotation on Ware’s drawing above. Number Item Problem 1, 2, 3 Skysails There is no record of any sail in use on any American Lake Ontario warship above the royals. Skysails did not become common on Atlantic warships until after the War of 1812. 4, 5 Gun ports and forecastle and Ware’s drawing has 13 broadside gun ports. Captain Sinclair quarterdeck pivot guns recorded 14, though only 13 were apparently ever used by cannon. The pivot guns, which due to their height on the raised decks should have been very clear in the drawing, are not present. 6 Distances between masts The blue lines show the between-mast distances Isaac Chauncey reported to Navy Agent John Bullus. There is a significant difference between those and the distances shown in the Ware drawing. For example, instead of the 65 feet between the fore and main masts specified by Chauncey, Ware’s drawing has that distance closer to 50 feet. 7 Mast height Although harder to evaluate from the drawing than the distances between the masts, many of the mast heights drawn by Ware appear to differ from those specified by Chauncey by as much as five feet.

The Pike also appears seriously over-canvassed. Ware apparently wanted to show the maximum amount of sail the vessel could support, but the drawing has sails that do not appear in any order from Isaac Chauncey at Sackets Harbor, such as the numerous staysails. There are other potential problems. Ware drew the Pike with 13 gun ports on each side. Her first captain, Arthur Sinclair, wrote that she had 14 ports a side. Also there is no voucher ever found that covers the glass appearing in the stern quarter galleries making their presence suspect. However, Midshipman Spicer’s drawing of the General Pike (see page 28) appears to show glass in the quarter galleries so their presence is probable. Ware’s drawing of the Pike is remarkably similar to his other drawings of warships which were at Boston and probably drawn as he viewed them. His memories of the Pike, however, were years in the past when he made his drawing. Ware’s work has too many deficiencies and outright errors that its use as an accurate depiction of the General Pike should be avoided.

Acknowledgements The author is indebted to those who took the time to review and comment on a draft of this paper: Dana Ashdown, Benjamin Ford, John Grodzinski, Walter Lewis, Matthew MacVittie, Jonathan Moore, Clayton Nans, Stephen Otto and Peter Rindlisbacher. Their comments and suggestions made this a better paper but any errors that remain are my sole responsibility.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 53 The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

Reference Abbreviations To shorten and simplify the source references that appear in the notes they use a set of abbreviations. These are: AF NAUS, RG45, Area File of the Naval Records Collection, Area 7. Articles of War Rules and Regulations for the Government of the United States Navy, 23 April 1800. Copy in Valle, James E., Rocks and Shoals, (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1980) Appendix B, p.285. ASP American State Papers, Class 6 - Naval Affairs, Volume 1. BECHS Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society, Buffalo, New York. CELSI NAUS, RG77, Letters From the Office of the Chief of Engineers Relating to Internal Improvements, 1824-1830. CELSM NAUS, RG77, Miscellaneous Letters Sent by the Chief of Engineers. CLB Isaac Chauncey’s Letterbooks, Manuscript Department, New York Historical Society (#’s 1, 2, 5 & 6) & William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan (#’s 3, 4, & 7). Crisman Crisman, Kevin James, The Jefferson: The History and Archaeology of an American Brig from the War of 1812, Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1989. DHC Cruikshank, Ernest A., Documentary History of the Campaigns on the Niagara Frontier (Welland ON: Tribune Office). Dudley Journal kept on board the U. S. S. Superior by Lieut. James A. Dudley U.S. Navy, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. NAC National Archives (Canada) NAUK National Archives (United Kingdom) NAUS National Archives (United States) NCLRC NAUS, RG45, Entry 220, Navy Commissioners Letters Received from Commandants. PJM-PS Papers of James Madison, Presidential Series, University of Virginia Press. PRR Prize and Related Records of the War of 1812, NAUS, RG21. PRC Parish-Rosseel Collection, Mss #5, Special Collections, Owen D. Young Library, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY RAO NAUS, RG217, Records of the Accountant of the Navy and the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury. RG Record Group Service Records Gibson, Gary M., Service Records of U. S. Navy and Marine Corps Officers Stationed on Lake Ontario During the War of 1812, Second Edition (Sackets Harbor, 2012). Settled Accounts NAUS, RG217, Records of the Accounting Officers of the Treasury, Fourth Auditor Settled Accounts. SNLRC NAUS, RG45, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy From Captains (“Captain’s Letters”). SNLRD NAUS, RG45, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy from Commanders. SNLRM NAUS, RG45, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy From Miscellaneous. SNLRO NAUS, RG45, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy From Officers Below the Rank of Commander.

Page 54 The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History The War of 1812 Magazine Issue 23 February 2015

SNLSC NAUS, RG45, Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Navy to Commandants and Navy Agents SNLSM NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Navy. SNLSO NAUS, RG45, Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Navy to Officers. SNPLB NAUS, RG45, Secretary of the Navy’s Private Letter Book, microfilm publication T829 roll 453. SWLRR NAUS, RG107, Letters Received by the Secretary of War, Registered Series Tompkins Papers Public Papers of Daniel D. Tompkins, Military, 3 volumes (Albany, 1898, 1902). WLB Melancthon Woolsey’s Letterbook #3, Woolsey Family Papers, Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library, Detroit, MI. Woolsey Journal 5 Melancthon Woolsey’s Journal #5, Woolsey Family Papers, 52.MSS Box 95, WFP.2 JOU.1-5, Oneida County Historical Society, Utica NY. Woolsey Journal 7 Melancthon Woolsey’s Journal #7b (Jones 1814), Woolsey Family Papers, 52.MSS Box 95, WFP.2 JOU.1-5, Oneida County Historical Society, Utica NY.

The U. S. Frigate General Pike – A Design & Operational History Page 55