The New Orleans Class Ships of the Line A Design and Construction History
Gary M. Gibson
Introduction ...... 2 Origin ...... 3 Ships of the Line ...... 7 Design ...... 16 Armament ...... 31 Paying for it All ...... 32 Contract Complications ...... 38 Steam Frigates? ...... 40 Farewell to Jones...... 42 Final Preparations ...... 43 Construction ...... 47 Distressing Developments ...... 57 British Intelligence ...... 59 February-April 1815 – “Suspend All Operations”...... 62 Was it Worth Doing? ...... 68 May 1815 – “They Will Perish In Two Years” ...... 75 1815-1817 – “Scandalous Workmanship” ...... 77 1817-1825 – “In a State of Decay” ...... 84 1825-1834 – The End of the Chippewa ...... 87 1835-1869 – “Becoming Precarious” ...... 96 1870-1883 – “Like a Corpse in State” ...... 106 1883-1884 – “Cutting Her Up” ...... 112 The New Orleans Lives On...... 115 Bill of Materials For Three Ships of the line ...... 119 The Rope Walk ...... 123 Contract to Build the New Orleans and Chippewa ...... 127 Contract to Build Shiphouses over the New Orleans & Chippewa ...... 130 Acknowledgements ...... 132 Reference Abbreviations ...... 132
2 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
INTRODUCTION
rom the last half of the seventeenth until the end of the first half of the nineteenth century F the number of sailing ships of the line a nation possessed determined that nation’s sea power. These warships, each mounting from 60 to over 130 cannon and carronades, were the largest and most complex machines of their day. During this period, while the nations of Europe, principally Great Britain, France and Spain, built many hundreds of these capital ships the fledgling United States Navy built only fifteen.
Of the ships of the line built by the United States between 1777 and 1822, only eleven were launched.1 Of the four that remained incomplete, two were built during the War of 1812 on Lake Ontario.2 One of these ships, the New Orleans, remained on the stocks at Sackets Harbor, New York, until its rotting remains were sold in 1883. This vessel is reasonably well documented and it is the only ship of the line built for the United States Navy during the War of 1812 that was photographed as it appeared while under construction.3
The other Lake Ontario ship of the line, the Chippewa, laid down at Storrs Harbor, New York, is a different matter entirely. Both the ship and its building site have almost vanished from the pages of history.
The War of 1812 was the only time that sailing warships of this size and power ever appeared on a fresh water lake. The New Orleans and Chippewa were built in great haste and under wartime conditions. Never launched, they remained for decades after the war as attractions for visitors and objects of curiosity for residents long after they had lost any value as warships. This is their story.
See page 132 for a list of abbreviations used in the footnotes. 1 The America, launched in 1782 and given to France as a gift, and the War of 1812 era vessels Independence, Washington, Franklin, Columbus, Delaware, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont and the Alabama (later renamed New Hampshire) laid down between 1813 and 1822 and launched between 1814 and 1864, DANFS, IV pp.559-604. 2 The other two ships of the line were under construction on the Atlantic, the New York at the Norfolk Navy Yard which was burned in April 1861 during the American Civil War and the Virginia at Boston which remained on the stocks until broken up in 1874, DANFS, IV pp.559-604. 3 See the photograph on page 110.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 3
ORIGIN
he 1814 American military campaign in Canada failed. The Niagara Frontier in the summer Tand early fall saw the hardest sustained fighting of the war, but ended without any advantage to the United States.4 With the end of the Napoleonic War in Europe, and Napoleon himself isolated on the Isle of Elba, thousands of British troops were available for service in North America. Over ten thousand British infantry arrived in Lower Canada during the summer of 1814. Almost half of these men came from the Duke of Wellington’s army that had years of experience fighting in Portugal, Spain and southern France, although not all saw active employment in Canada that year. Now badly outnumbered, the United States Army in Northern New York was forced to defend its own territory. Offensive operations against Canada were no longer possible.
On Lake Ontario that year, a war of ship carpenters continued with the United States constructing two frigates and two large brigs.5 By August 1814 the United States gained naval superiority on that lake, but too late in the year to aid the army in its operations on the Niagara Frontier or to accomplish anything significant at the eastern end of Lake Ontario.
By mid-September it was time for the United States to formulate its plans for the 1815 campaign. As the latest reports had the peace negotiations with the British going nowhere, the Americans needed a new and war-winning strategy.
For the United States Navy it was clear that Lake Ontario was the only theatre in which they could have any effect on the outcome of the war, and also the only theatre in which advance planning was worthwhile. Thanks to Master Commandant Thomas Macdonough’s victory on Lake Champlain on 11 September 1814 and Master Commandant Oliver Hazard Perry’s victory on Lake Erie the year before, the navy believed it was in firm control of both lakes, and that this control was unlikely to be seriously challenged in 1815.6 On the Atlantic, the Royal Navy’s overwhelming superiority made operational planning an exercise in futility. The best that could be done was to slip a warship into the Atlantic every now and then to annoy the British. If the
4 The capture of Fort Erie, the battles of Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane, the siege of Fort Erie, and the battle at Lyon’s Creek, all between July and October 1814. In early November the United States Army abandoned all its positions on the Canadian side of the Niagara River. 5 The 56-gun frigate Superior, the 42-gun frigate Mohawk and the 22-gun brigs Jefferson and Jones. 6 The British had other ideas. Commodore Sir James Lucas Yeo, at Kingston, Upper Canada, informed the Admiralty in London on 1 January 1815, that he wanted to build “three good frigates and two heavy brigs” on Lake Champlain by May 1815, and that “this force, with the addition of gun boats I consider sufficient to regain the naval superiority on that lake.” NAUK, ADM 1/2738, LAC film B-2942 and LAC, RG 8, C.734 pp.8-9, film C-3244. Although by December 1814 the British had given up plans to build warships on Lake Erie in 1815 due to a lack of a suitable site, at the end of 1814 supplies and workmen were at Penetangushene Bay on Lake Huron preparing to build a 44-gun frigate that winter. LAC, RG 8, C.733 pp.131-133 and pp.170-171, film C-3244.
4 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Navy was to accomplish anything significant in 1815, it would have to be done on Lake Ontario, and directed from the naval station at Sackets Harbor, located at the mouth of Black River Bay on the lake’s eastern shore.
Before the War of 1812, Sackets Harbor was a small village of about 40 families whose principal fame was as a notorious haven for smugglers.7 The war radically transformed the little village. By October 1814, Sackets Harbor was the busiest naval
Isaac Chauncey station in the United States. With ranks augmented by men transferred from Macdonough’s victorious squadron on Lake Champlain, it was the base for over 2,500 sailors and marines and a large but variable number of regular soldiers and militia.8 In addition there were the residents themselves, whose numbers had been swollen by hundreds of contractors, tradesmen, sutlers, ship carpenters, woodcutters, laborers, tavern keepers, prostitutes and other camp-followers hoping to profit from the extensive naval and military presence there. The war, however, devastated the little village. By the end of 1814 it had become an “assemblage of grog shops and houses of depravity.”9
Despite its unpleasant nature, between the fall of 1812 and the summer of 1814, under the command of Commodore Isaac Chauncey, the United States Navy built eight warships at Sackets Harbor, the most at any single location during the war. These vessels ranged in size from the one- gun dispatch schooner Lady of the Lake to the frigate Superior, with broadside ports for up to 64 guns. The Superior was the largest and most powerful United States warship to see active service during the war.10 As early as late June 1814, over a month before the American squadron sailed from Sackets Harbor for the first time that year, Commodore Isaac Chauncey was considering the
7 Sackets Harbor’s size is Spafford’s 1812 estimate: Horatio Gates Spafford, A Gazetteer of the State of New York (Albany: H. C. Southwick, 1813) p.80. The 1810 Census gave the Town of Hounsfield in Jefferson County New York, which includes the village of Sackets Harbor, a total of 151 family units, most of which were living on farms outside the village; an 1814 census lists 1,386 residents in Hounsfield. NAUS, RG29, Census of 1810, M252 roll 28 pp.4-70; Elisha Camp Papers, Cornell University Rare Books and Manuscripts #696 Box 1, folder 1814.10.17 to 1814.12.08. For smuggling see Albert Gallatin to Samuel F. Hooker, 9 October 1808, Albert Gallatin Papers, microfilm edition roll 17, and Hart Massey to Albert Gallatin, 14 March 1809, Albert Gallatin Papers, microfilm edition roll 19. 8 William Jones estimated 2,300 sailors and muster rolls show 258 Marines plus officers on the Sackets Harbor station in the fall of 1814, an increase from the 1,961 officers, Marines and sailors reported at the end of August 1814. William Jones to James Madison, 26 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.184-202. Marine complement derived from NAUS, RG 127, Muster Rolls of the U. S. Marine Corps, Sackets Harbor Station, October to December, 1814, T1118 roll 5. August estimate from WJP. 9 Gary M. Gibson, “Militia, Mud and Misery: Sackets Harbor During the War of 1812,” New York History 94/3-4 (Summer/Fall 2013): 241-266. 10 For stability reasons, the Superior sailed carrying only 56 guns, but 30 of those were 32-pound cannon, the same guns that armed the lower gun deck of most British ships of the line.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 5 need to build even more warships the coming winter, writing to Secretary of the Navy William Jones:
[If] there should be no probability of a peace with England it will become absolutely necessary to prepare materials for building next winter, provided we mean to contest the supremacy of the lakes and the sooner these materials are collected the better.11
Chauncey knew that the British were building a large ship of the line at Kingston, Upper Canada and he assumed, correctly, that she would not be complete until the coming October. Chauncey learned of this ship in March 1814, with details “derived from various sources” and included in a report to Navy Secretary Jones:
This ship is barely commenced and is supposed to be entered for two tiers of guns. Her keel is 156 feet, breath of beam 47 feet.12
Two months later Chauncey reported more worrisome news about the new large ship building at Kingston:
The enemy is driving on with great force with his large ship at Kingston which is intended to be an 80 gun ship upon two decks but will mount 100 guns or upwards.13
As the shipbuilding plan for 1814 was prepared before this information was known, Chauncey did not feel “authorized to prepare to build any thing to oppose such a vessel without special authority.”14 That authority would not arrive any time soon.
As the summer progressed, Chauncey’s agents continued to report on the progress of the new British warship at Kingston, later named the
St. Lawrence. One report, delivered in early July by spy William William Jones Johnston, stated that she would be ready by the first of September thanks to their being “two hundred additional carpenters at work.”15
A month later, courtesy of information contained in “intercepted letters,” Chauncey reported to Secretary Jones that
11 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones, 24 June 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 4 item 108 roll 37. 12 A View of the British Naval Force on Lake Ontario, 15 March 1814, AF, roll 76 frames 557-558. 13 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #80, 23 May 1814, CLB 5. 14 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones, 24 June 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 4 item 108 roll 37. 15 Isaac Chauncey to Jacob Brown, 8 July 1814, CLB 6.
6 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
It appears to be the opinion of most of the carpenters, writing to their friends in England, that she could not be got ready to launch before October. These letters state her to be longer than the Nelson of 120 Guns — that she is to have three complete decks, with 34 guns on each deck — but that she is slight built — they express apprehensions for her safety in launching, as they had no means of laying her ways below the water so that when she tips, she will be water borne, and it is thought her great weight may break her in two — this is also the opinion of Mr Eckford.16
The carpenters’ launch concerns were unwarranted as the St. Lawrence was “launched in perfect safety” the morning of 10 September 1814.17 As Chauncey’s squadron was blockading Kingston at the time, the launch was discovered the next day and reported to Secretary Jones a few days later.18 The St. Lawrence was completely ready for sea on 14 October.19
The probable need for an 1815 campaign was clear by August, but the “inevitable derangement of the public offices” caused by the British attacks on Washington and Baltimore delayed matters.20 It was late September before the Navy Department took up the question of what to do in 1815. By then, Secretary of the Navy William Jones had Commodore Chauncey’s report that the British launched the St. Lawrence and that she would be in service by early October.21 Chauncey would then be seriously outgunned and the British would dominate Lake Ontario for the remainder of 1814.
Having a naval plan in place as early as possible was extremely important as the wretched state of the roads leading to Sackets Harbor made late fall and early spring transport almost impossible. Any resumption of shipbuilding required transporting a large quantity of naval stores from New York City and elsewhere and, as the British now controlled Lake Ontario, waterborne transport was no longer possible. Any delay risked a repeat of the situation in the spring of 1814, when the teamsters found the roads so bad that they left their loads of cannon in the snow, took their horses and wagons and went home.22
16 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #133, 10 August 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 5 item 85 roll 38. 17 James Lucas Yeo to John Wilson Croker #26, 10 September 1814, NAUK, ADM 1/2737, LAC film B-2942. 18 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #155, 17 September 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 6 item 64 roll 39. 19 James Lucas Yeo to John Wilson Croker #34, 14 October 1814, NAUK, ADM 1/2737, LAC film B-2942., 20 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 5 September 1814, SNLSO, vol 11 p.431 roll 11. 21 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #155, 17 September 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 6 item 64 roll 39. 22 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #11, 4 March 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 2 item 12 roll 35.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 7
SHIPS OF THE LINE
ecretary Jones knew that the United States Navy had only two options for 1815: resume S naval construction at Sackets Harbor, out-build the British, regain control of Lake Ontario in the spring and support the army’s efforts, or make no further shipbuilding effort, relinquish control of Lake Ontario and depend on the army alone to win the war. However, before Jones could consider shipbuilding as a viable option three questions had to be answered:
First, how could the work be paid for? The United States government was essentially bankrupt, as Jones knew from his experience while also serving as acting secretary of the treasury from March 1813 until February 1814. By the summer of 1814 the Navy Department was paying its bills, or trying to, using loan instruments called Treasury Notes. These were either not accepted by banks and contractors, or accepted only at a hefty discount.
Second, where would the sailors come from? Over 3,700 additional sailors and Marines would be needed to man the new warships on all the lakes, and Secretary Jones was certain they would not be easy to obtain, as sailors on the Atlantic disliked serving on a freshwater lake.23
Finally, assuring that the Navy had uncontested control of Lake Ontario in 1815 would require a shipbuilding program that dwarfed that of 1814. Could the facilities at Sackets Harbor support an effort of such magnitude?
Finding the money to pay for the work was a problem for President James Madison and the new treasury secretary, Alexander James Dallas. Dallas was definitely not happy about the situation, but there was little the navy could do to help.24 The second question could be answered by laying up many of the Atlantic gunboat flotillas and sending those sailors to Sackets Harbor. In late 1814 these flotillas still employed several thousand men.25 Congress would complain and, as the lake service was unpopular, it would create many unhappy sailors, but Jones could do it. It was the last question that had the greatest uncertainty. Jones had no clear idea of the shipbuilding capacity at Sackets Harbor, he had never been near the place, nor had President Madison. John Armstrong, the former secretary of war, visited Sackets Harbor, but he was gone, a political casualty of the British capture of Washington in August. His replacement, James Monroe, was as unfamiliar with Sackets Harbor as Jones was.
23 William Jones to James Madison, 26 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.196-202; William Jones to Benjamin Homans, 18 December 1814, SNLRM, 1814 vol 8 item 120 roll 67. 24 “I have never enjoyed a moment’s happiness since you brought me to Washington,” Alexander J. Dallas to William Jones, 29 January 1815, WJP. 25 William Jones to Benjamin Homans, 18 December 1814, SNLRM, 1814 vol 8 item 120 roll 67; WJP.
8 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Secretary Jones wrote to Commodore Chauncey asking if the facilities at Sackets Harbor could support the simultaneous construction of three 94-gun ships of the line, to be ready for service “by the time the lake shall become navigable” in the spring of 1815.26 This time is usually around mid-April. In addition, Jones asked Chauncey about the availability of timber, local sources of iron, and the feasibility of constructing a rope walk at Sackets Harbor to avoid having to transport the many heavy cables that would be needed.27
William Jones began his tenure as secretary of the navy in January 1813 perfectly in accord with President Madison’s desire to establish and maintain naval superiority on the lakes. As the months progressed, with more and more effort and expense directed towards that object with no apparent long-term benefit from it, Jones had a change of heart. In May 1814, following the British attack on Oswego, Jones wrote to Madison asking if there was “an adequate object in that quarter for all this hazard and expenditure of blood & treasure?”28 In early July, ordered by Madison to build another new warship on Lake Champlain, Jones complained “that the irksome contest of shipbuilding must still progress.”29 By then he was convinced that building additional warships on the lakes was an exercise in futility. For Jones, the situation on Lake Ontario that year was a convincing example: even after building two frigates and two large brigs, the 1814 campaign ended with the Royal Navy firmly in control of that lake.
By October, Jones and Madison were in complete disagreement on this issue, although both men kept their discord a polite and private one. Madison was determined to regain naval superiority on Lake Ontario in 1815 and he ordered Jones to do whatever it took to accomplish it. Jones reluctantly complied, but he made one more effort to change the president’s mind.
At the end of October, Jones wrote Madison that the task of building ships of the line at Sackets Harbor was underway, but he doubted that such exertions “can be extended indefinitely, or we may perchance find their limitation in disaster and useless expenditures.”30 In the same letter, Jones accurately predicted that the British “will doubtless lay the keel of another first rate, and probably of two, the instant he discovers our preparations,” and he again stressed the futility of conducting a shipbuilding war with the British. Instead, Jones suggested a number of military operations which, in his mind, would avoid the need to resume the war of ship carpenters.
26 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 24 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.188-190. 27 See the history of the Sackets Harbor rope walk beginning on page 122. 28 William Jones to James Madison, 25 May 1814, WJP. 29 William Jones to Thomas Macdonough, 5 July 1814, SNPLB, p.164. 30 William Jones to James Madison, 26 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.196-202.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 9
In a meeting with Madison a few days later, Jones was complimented on his letter, which Madison had found “in the highest degree able and interesting.”31 Jones, however, did not succeed in changing the president’s mind. The two men continued to disagree, but planning to build ships of the line at Sackets Harbor that winter continued. Jones acknowledged Madison’s orders by informing the president that he had taken
The preparatory steps for increasing our naval force on Lake Ontario, to an extent which shall command the superiority on that lake at the opening of the spring campaign of 1815.32
Those steps included building three ships of the line, each to rate 80 guns but carry 94. Each vessel would be armed with a mix of 32, 24 and 18-pound cannon and 42-pound carronades. Crew size was expected to be about 800 men each for a total increase of 2,400 seamen and officers at Sackets Harbor. This increase would double the number of men and officers stationed on Lake Ontario. The details of Jones’ proposed ships of the line are given in Table 1.
Table 1 - October 1814 Proposed 94-gun Ships of the line Rate 80 (to carry 94) Burthen 2,277 tons Length of the keel 174 feet estimated Length of the keel for tonnage 160 feet estimated Length between perpendiculars 190 feet Moulded beam amidships 52 feet Lower gun deck armament 30, 32-pound cannon Main gun deck armament 32, 24-pound cannon Spar deck armament 16, 18-pound cannon 16, 42-pound carronades Broadside Weight 1,344 pounds
At the time Madison received Jones’ shipbuilding letter, his resignation was six weeks old. William Jones wanted to resign the previous April but he agreed to stay on for a few months.33 In addition to Jones’ disagreement with Madison over shipbuilding on the lakes, Jones had come under increasing criticism in the press, particularly for what many saw as the navy’s role in the failure of the 1814 campaign on the Niagara Frontier. The burning of the government buildings at Washington by the British and the simultaneous destruction at the Washington Navy Yard also played a part in Jones’ increasing unhappiness. Finally, the demands on Jones’ time as navy
31 William Jones to his wife, Eleanor Jones, 6 November 1814, WJP. 32 William Jones to James Madison, 26 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.196-202. 33 The first mention of Jones’ wish to resign was apparently on 25 April 1814. William Jones to James Madison, 11 September 1814, WJP.
10 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 secretary prevented him from attending to his private financial and mercantile affairs and he was sinking deeper into debt every month.34 By mid-September 1814, Jones had reached the end of his tolerance and, a very unhappy man, he submitted his resignation which Madison accepted.35
Jones allowed Madison to choose the effective date of that resignation to be any time up to the first of December 1814. Madison chose the first of December, which left Jones the unpleasant task of arranging the details of that winter’s shipbuilding at Sackets Harbor. Jones wrote his wife that “the ensuing two months will be the longest and most irksome of my life” but that his resignation would be effective on December first and “at that day at farthest I shall be free.”36 Jones and Madison agreed that it would be best for his resignation to be kept a secret for as long as possible, so his effectiveness during the remaining weeks would not be diminished.
In Washington, then as now, secrets were hard to keep. Jones himself did not help matters when he disclosed his departure date “to four members of Congress in confidence and I do not believe it is yet known to more than twenty.”37 Surprisingly, the secret held longer than might be expected. Rumors of Jones’ resignation did not appear in the Washington area newspapers until early November. Jones himself did not officially inform Chauncey until his last day in office.38 It is not clear exactly what time the news reached Lake Ontario, but Chauncey was still addressing his letters from Sackets Harbor to Jones as late as 2 December 1814.39
Even before Secretary Jones wrote to Commodore Chauncey and asked his questions, he knew he had a question of his own that needed a fast answer. Building three 94-gun ships of the line at Sackets Harbor required an immense quantity of guns and naval stores. Some 282 cannon and carronades plus anchors, cambooses, iron work, tons of kentledge, and a huge list of other items would have to reach Sackets Harbor no later than the following March if this new force was to be ready by the time the ice disappeared from Lake Ontario (see list of items on page 119). Jones knew from experience that this deadline might be unrealistic. Many circumstances conspired to make that goal an extremely difficult one to achieve.
34 Jones’ balance sheet, dated 13 April 1815, showed a deficiency of $29,692, a very large sum for the time, and this was after Jones had several months to work on reducing it. WJP. 35 William Jones to James Madison, 11 September 1814, WJP. 36 William Jones to Eleanor Jones, 21 September 1814, WJP. 37 William Jones to Eleanor Jones, 30 September 1814, WJP. 38 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 30 November 1814, SNPLB, pp.223-225. 39 It was not until Chauncey reached New York City on 9 December that he changed his letters to address a generic “Secretary of the Navy” (but the letterbook copy of his 10 December letter remains addressed to William Jones) and it took an additional week before he addressed Benjamin Homans as Acting Secretary. Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #210, Secretary of the Navy #211 (to William Jones in CLB 6) and Benjamin Homans #212, 2, 10 and 16 December 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 8 items 76, 99 and 115 roll 41.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 11
Jones wrote to Acting Secretary of War James Monroe making him aware of one such difficulty:
The proposed increase of force on Lake Ontario will require all the heavy cannon at this place, Baltimore & Philadelphia besides dismantling one or two (if not more) of our ships of war). You will recollect that this department has recently loaned to the War Department 35 thirty two pounders for Fort Washington & about twenty for Fort Mifflen besides those at Baltimore. It will therefore be impossible to dispense with those guns unless the object contemplated by the president is abandoned for there is not an hour to be lost in the transportation.40
Jones asked Monroe to speak with the president and get the destination of those loaned guns changed to Sackets Harbor.
In addition, Jones had in his possession a three-week-old inventory of the cannon in storage at the various navy yards on the Atlantic.41 A glance at this told him that there were plenty of cannon available, but not enough were in the best locations to be expeditiously shipped to Sackets. Table 2 shows how Jones planned to obtain the ordnance he needed:
Table 2 – Cannon Available and Used at the Atlantic Naval Yards 42 Gun Number Cannon available at (Cannon to be used from) Available Type Needed Baltimore New York Philadelphia Washington (Used) Long 32 90 19 (19) 3 (0) 19 (19) 67 (52) 108 (90) Long 24 96 26 (26) 5 (5) 19 (19) 28 (14) 78 (64) Long 18 48 — — 92 (48) 57 (0) 149 (48) Short 42 48 75 (27) 3 (3) 1 (1) 2 (5)1 81 (36) Totals 282 120 (72) 11 (8) 131 (87) 154 (71) 413 (238) Type Long = Cannon, Type Short = Carronade
The most convenient navy yard from which to ship articles to Sackets Harbor was at New York City. Unfortunately, the demands of the navy at New York City and especially on lakes Ontario and Champlain during the past two years reduced the cannon stocks at the New York Navy Yard to almost nothing. All but eight of the cannon would have to come from elsewhere.
The other navy yards, in order of preference, were at Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington. In other circumstances shipping cannon from any of these places to New York City
40 William Jones to James Monroe, 7 November 1814, SNPLB, p.205. 41Return of Long Guns & Carronades of the following Calibres at the several Naval Depots on the 30th day of September 1814, WJP. 42 Cannon Available taken from Return of Long Guns & Carronades of the following Calibres at the several Naval Depots on the 30th day of September 1814, WJP; cannon used from William Jones to Samuel T. Anderson, 24 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.190-193; another copy in SNLRM, 1816 vol 7 item 117 roll 77.
12 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 would be a routine and rather simple task: load them on board ship and sail them to New York. Unfortunately, the Royal Navy’s presence in the Delaware and Chesapeake bays made that option too hazardous to contemplate. The cannon would have to go overland for a good part of the way, with the result that transport from Washington, being the farthest distance from Sackets Harbor, was the most unattractive option. Jones tried to minimize the number of guns he would have to ship from there.43
Jones also tried to reduce the transport distances as much as possible by using guns from existing warships, requisitioning the additional 32 24-pound cannon needed from the main armament of the frigate United States at New London, Connecticut and the extra twelve 42-pound carronades from the John Adams, conveniently laid up at New York City. If possible, Jones also hoped to obtain additional guns from the gunboats in ordinary at New York but he was uncertain how many of the right kinds, if any, were available.
Actually moving the cannon and carronades alone to Sackets Harbor represented the largest logistical task yet faced by the United States Navy. What was required was:
To move 66 cannon and 5 carronades, about 170 tons requiring 69 wagons, the 45 miles from Washington to Baltimore.44
At Baltimore add 45 cannon and 27 carronades, about an additional 145 tons and 59 more wagons for a total of 315 tons and 128 wagon loads. This number of wagons would stretch almost two miles along the road.
From Baltimore there were two possible routes. The first would transport the cannon 160 miles to Philadelphia by way of Lancaster along what was described as a “good turnpike road the whole way,”45 then by road to New York City.
The second way was by road about 50 miles to York Landing on the Susquehanna River, then up that winding river over 200 miles to Tioga Point and then overland over 100 additional miles to Utica.
43 Jones was well aware of the transport difficulties. “To send heavy Ordnance [to Sackets Harbor] from Philadelphia, Baltimore and this place [Washington DC], is a Herculean task.” William Jones to Chauncey, 18 March 1814, SNPLB, pp.112-114. 44 Two sizes of 32 pound cannon (long 32’s) were needed, 30 of 50 cwt and 60 of 55 cwt. As the records do not specify which type came from where, these calculations assume that all 32 pounders were the light 50 cwt model. This underestimates the weight to be transported by as much as 15 tons. 45 William Jones to Samuel T. Anderson, 24 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.190-193; another copy in SNLRM, 1816 vol 7 item 117 roll 77.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 13
The 86 cannon and one carronade originating in Philadelphia would require some 87 wagons to move them by road some 100 miles to New York City.
Ice permitting, cannon coming from New York would be loaded onto merchant sloops and schooners for the 150 mile trip up the Hudson River, then be unloaded at Albany and moved in wagons 20 miles to Schenectady. There they would be loaded into smaller Mohawk River boats and carried upriver some 75 miles to Utica.
As the 1814 season ended with the British in control of Lake Ontario, the most efficient water route to Sackets Harbor that fall was unavailable even if the winter weather would have permitted its use.46 Once all the guns arrived at Utica the final leg of 80 miles to Sackets Harbor would require 258 wagons to transport the 611 tons of cannon up Tug Hill and across the Tug Hill plateau to Watertown and Sackets Harbor. If sent all at once, this cannon convoy would stretch for miles.
Implementing this scheme depended on the availability of enough heavy wagons to carry the cannon and the horses to pull them. Each wagon needed at least four and ideally six horses to move a three-ton 32-pound cannon or a pair of carronades. If done all at once, the final leg up Tug Hill to Sackets Harbor needed between 1,000 and 1,500 horses. Since arranging this all-at- once transport was unrealistic, the cannon would be moved in smaller groups.
Cannon coming from New York could, with great effort, favorable winds and optimal weather, make it to Sackets Harbor in about two weeks. Given the need to move upstream on both the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers and as one rainy day would turn the roads into morasses, a more reasonable minimum would be three weeks. Cannon coming from further south would take a week or two longer. This, of course, assumed the water routes (Hudson, Susquehanna and Mohawk rivers) were not blocked by ice. If they were, and all roads muddy, it could take months to move cannon from Washington to Sackets Harbor. To avoid that, transporting the guns and stores had to start immediately and be supervised by someone with a lot of experience. Fortunately William Jones knew just the man for the job: Samuel T. Anderson.
Anderson was a former clerk at the Navy Department in Washington who, in 1809, became the storekeeper at the New York Navy Yard.47 For most of the war, he had served as Commodore
46 Up the Mohawk River to Rome NY, then down Wood Creek to and across Oneida Lake, down the Oneida and Oswego Rivers to Lake Ontario and finally across the lake to Sackets Harbor. 47 Paul Hamilton to Samuel T. Anderson, 23 November 1809, SNLSC, p.127 roll 175.
14 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Chauncey’s one-man logistics department and transportation trouble-shooter.48 For almost two years he had been shuttling between Sackets Harbor, Albany and New York City resolving one transportation problem after another and, eventually getting everything safely to Lake Ontario.49 Secretary Jones now ordered him to perform a task, at a moment’s notice, much larger and more difficult than any he had faced before and with a very tight time frame in which to accomplish it. It was not only cannon Anderson had to deal with, Jones ordered him to arrange the transport of the other items needed for the three ships of the line as shown in Table 3.
Table 3 – Shipbuilding Stores Needed at Sackets Harbor 50 Cannon and carronades 611 Tons Gun carriages 141 “ Shot 327 “ Cordage 390 “ Iron (bar and bolt) 300 “ Anchors 45 “ Powder 25 “ Sail duck 15 “ Naval stores, oakum, tools, materials, etc. 135 “ Kentledge for ballast 750 “ 2,739 Tons
The total was nearly twice the tonnage transported to Sackets Harbor for the four warships built there in 1814, and those ships were not complete until July.51
To assist Anderson, Secretary Jones provided him with a letter addressed to “Officers of the Navy.” In that letter Jones explained Anderson’s mission and concluded:
I hereby require and direct all officers of the navy and navy agents, to facilitate and aid him in the execution of the business with which he is charged, by all the reasonable means in their power, whenever he shall require their assistance.52
48 “The whole management of the transportation should be left exclusively to yourself,” Isaac Chauncey to Samuel T. Anderson, 11 April 1814, CLB 5. 49 For example, William Jones to Samuel T. Anderson, 22 May 1813, SNLSO vol 10 p.436 roll 10 and William Jones to Samuel T. Anderson, 17 March 1814, SNLSC, vol 2 p.15 roll 176. 50 William Jones to Samuel T. Anderson, 24 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.190-193 also in SNLRM, 1816 vol 7 item 117 roll 77. 51 The weight of naval stores transported in 1814 is given as between 1,400 and 1,500 tons. William Jones to James Madison, 25 May 1814 and William Jones to Daniel W. Coxe, 28 May 1814, both WJP. 52 William Jones to Officers of the Navy, 24 October 1814, SNPLB, p.193.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 15
In addition Jones sent letters to the commandants and navy agents at Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York City and to the commanding officers on Lake Champlain and of the frigates John Adams and United States. Those letters ordered them to promptly provide Anderson with the specified cannon, carronades, carriages and other stores.53 Secretary of War James Monroe did his part by writing his own order addressed to “Officers of the Army” ordering them to “facilitate” Andersons operations as much as possible.54 Finally, Jones gave Anderson orders that included:
General authority to engage such persons, waggons, teams, and vessels, and employ such other means, as in the execution of your various duties … [as] you may consider necessary for the faithful and prompt discharge of your trust, and conducive to the public interest.55
Having complied with Madison’s orders, Secretary Jones reminded the president that the British were easily capable of responding to his building program with one of their own:
We seem to forget that we are at war with the most potent naval power in the world, whose depots and workshops are full of all kinds of munitions and equipments which he may transport without interruption from the ocean to Lake Ontario, in less time, and at one-fourth of the expense that we can transport similar stores from Washington to New York. He has nothing to construct at Kingston but the bare hulls of his ships, for which he has abundance of materials and workmen at his command, and we have evidence that he can, with facility, procure both from our own territory. He has paid off and discharged a great many seamen, and has a superfluous number of ships of the line on the American station, three or four of which he may at any time dismantle, without inconvenience, and send their stores and crews to Lake Ontario.56
In issuing these orders before receiving Chauncey’s answers to his questions, Secretary Jones was tacitly assuming that his building plan was possible. Now it all depended on what Commodore Isaac Chauncey at Sackets Harbor thought of the plan.
53 William Jones to James Beatty (Baltimore), Alexander Murray (Philadelphia), Samuel Evans (New York), Stephen Decatur (New York) and the commanding officers of the frigate United States and on Lake Champlain, 24 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.194-195. 54 James Monroe to Officers of the Army, 24 October 1814, SNPLB, p.193. 55 William Jones to Samuel T. Anderson, 24 October 1814, SNPLB, p.195. 56 William Jones to James Madison, 26 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.196-202.
16 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
DESIGN
saac Chauncey received Jones’ letter on 2 November 1814 and he took the next three days to I “digest it.”57 He wanted the time, but not to determine the answers to Jones’ questions. Those Chauncey could have provided at once. Full and honest answers, however, would have told Jones that the task he wanted Chauncey to accomplish was simply not possible in the time allowed. Chauncey needed a few days to consider his alternatives and to craft a reply that would present a more positive picture of the situation.
The geography of Sackets Harbor, and particularly the depth of water immediately offshore, permitted the launching of only one frigate-sized or larger vessel at a time, at the end of a peninsula known as “Navy Point.” Chauncey was well aware of this fact as the frigates Superior and Mohawk were built there, one after the other, earlier that year.58 Chauncey also knew that building vessels of the size envisioned by Jones would take at least three months and, as they were being built in the winter, probably longer. The smaller frigate Superior, built in the winter and spring, took 80 days from laying the keel to launch.59
Only one ship of the line could be built at Sackets Harbor in the time available. The others would have to be built elsewhere. There were two candidate locations. Nine miles to the south lay the village of Henderson Harbor, located at the head of a bay, open to the north. Before the war this village was larger than Sackets Harbor and it would provide good support for the workmen. Henderson Harbor also allowed for the construction of two large vessels simultaneously. Finally, Henderson Harbor was closer to the main supply depot at Oswego on Lake Ontario, easing the logistical situation somewhat.
57 This is Isaac Chauncey’s own explanation for the delay in his reply. Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #192, 3 November 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 7 item 95 roll 40. 58 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #97, 11 June 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 4 item 62 roll 37. The smaller warships, including the Jefferson and Jones, did not require such deep water to launch and they were built along the waterfront opposite the Augustus Sacket mansion in Sackets Harbor. 59 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #56, 1 May 1814, SNLRC, 1816 Vol 1 Item 103 roll 48.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 17
Upper Black River Bay and Storrs Harbor about 1840, after the Chippewa was demolished. NAUS, RG 77, drawer 115 no. 2
Those advantages were more than offset by two disadvantages. The leading citizen and land agent, Jesse Hopkins, was a staunch Federalist and completely opposed to any military or naval presence at Henderson Harbor.60 His wishes could be ignored, but only at the cost of alienating most of the local citizenry, who were also Federalists. The biggest problem, however, was defense. Henderson Harbor would require large-scale fortification against both land and naval attack, and a substantial garrison would have to be provided. This would require a lot of men, time and money, all of which were in very short supply. Also, any troops sent to garrison Henderson Harbor would diminish the defenses of Sackets and the two sites were too far away from each other to be mutually supporting. Vessels on the stocks at Henderson Harbor would likely be left dangerously exposed to British attack. Although the use of Henderson Harbor would permit three ships of the line to be built that winter, Chauncey decided against that location.
The second possibility lay three miles to the north of Sackets Harbor and deeper into Black River Bay. There, near a sheltered cove known locally as Storrs Harbor, was a gentle slope of land with enough deep water immediately offshore to build and launch at least one large vessel at
60 Hough, Franklin B., A History of Jefferson County in the State of New York (Watertown NY: Sterling & Riddell, 1854) p.432. While Hopkins and the citizens of Henderson Harbor were opposed to the Navy’s presence, the Harbor’s namesake and principal property owner, William Henderson, apparently was not. When it came time to consider where to lay up the lake warships at war’s end, he recommended Henderson harbor as “well calculated” to receive them. William Henderson to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 15 April 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 4 item 24 roll 71.
18 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 a time.61 However, there were two disadvantages to this location. The area was almost completely undeveloped, limiting the number of large vessels that could be built in the time available. Also, a walk from Sackets to Storrs might take a pleasant hour on a June afternoon, but it would be a three or four hour ordeal in a February snowstorm. Storrs Harbor was just too far from Sackets for workmen to commute to the job. They would have to live where they worked, and that meant barracks, storehouses and all the other supporting structures, the building of which would inevitably delay the start of ship construction.
Storrs Harbor did have one big advantage: defense. Before the British could mount a naval attack on Storrs Harbor they must first get past the defenses of Sackets Harbor, which by late 1814 was one of the most heavily fortified places in North America. In addition, Storrs Harbor, only three miles from Sackets, was close enough for substantial military forces to arrive quickly enough to defend against a major British overland attack. The only real danger was from a small British raiding party, and a Marine guard, a stockade and a few blockhouses could deal with that.
Years later, Isaac Chauncey explained to Secretary of the Navy Samuel Southard why he selected Storrs Harbor:
When I received orders in December 1814 to build three large ships, in addition to those we had, and to have them ready for service as soon as the lake should be navigable — I was at a loss where to build them as only one could be built upon the point and there was no other spot about the Harbour where there was a sufficient depth of water to launch so large a ship from, after examining the bay thoroughly, we found Storrs’ Harbour the only spot where we could build and launch from, that place was therefore fixed upon, and arrangements made accordingly altho’ the place was inconvenient, from the circumstance of its being so far removed from our stores and every building and other accommodation to erect — As neither the owner or the agent, of the property, lived at Sackets Harbor, we was obliged to occupy it without consulting them — But Mr Eckford and the Messrs Browns after I made my contract with them, for building the ships, to guard against any interruption from the owner of the property, at Storrs’ Harbor, sent an agent — and purchased the whole tract, including the harbour — upon this spot the 74 gun ship Chippawa stands together with ship house, block house, store houses, work shops &c &c — There was no agreement entered into with Mr Eckford by me, for this ground, or for the rent — it was occupied from the necessity of the case, and as the news of peace soon followed and all the work at the harbour suspended by order of the Department, and my command ceased in the spring.62
61 Storrs Harbor is named for Lemuel Storrs who originally owned the property. 62 Isaac Chauncey to Samuel L. Southard, 15 February 1827, SNLRC, 1827 vol 4a item 37 roll 118.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 19
Choosing Storrs Harbor as the second building site gave Chauncey a new problem to solve. The first two ships could not be launched until the ice in Black River Bay thinned out, which could not optimistically be expected to happen before mid-March. Even if building the third ship of the line started immediately thereafter it would not be complete before mid-June at the earliest, and Chauncey would be late.
The previous summer Commodore Chauncey had been severely criticized by Jones (and, indirectly, by President Madison) for delaying his sailing from Sackets Harbor in support of the army for weeks past the originally scheduled date. This delay was exacerbated by an acrimonious exchange of letters between Chauncey and the army commander on the Niagara Frontier, Major General Jacob Brown, which found their way into the newspapers. The press, in turn, blamed Chauncey for the failure of the 1814 campaign on that frontier.63 The shore of Black River Bay near where the Chippewa was built. That same delay had almost gotten Chauncey replaced by Stephen Decatur. Jones ordered Decatur to Sackets Harbor and it was only Chauncey’s last minute sailing with his squadron that preserved his command.64 As the summer’s delay was caused, in part, by his being quite ill,65 Chauncey felt Jones’ censure was “the more mortifying because I think undeserved.”66 Even so, Chauncey was a very proud man and he would not willingly risk a situation where he could be accused of being late in sailing a second time. Still, as he was ordered to build three ships of the line, he could choose between Storrs Harbor and being almost two months late or Henderson Harbor and having two of those ships destroyed on the stocks by the British. Either way his reputation and his career would suffer.
63 A selection of such articles appeared in the Philadelphia Pennsylvania Gazette on 27 July 1814. Other newspapers around that time such as the New York Spectator (30 July 1814) and the Alexandria, Virginia Alexandria Gazette (2 August 1814) contained similar articles. Almost all newspapers addressed this issue in late July and early August 1814. 64 Decatur himself was unwilling to command on a freshwater lake. He delayed his departure, asking Jones to confirm his orders, which annoyed Jones. Finally, and to his relief, Decatur learned that Chauncey had sailed. William Jones to Stephen Decatur, 28 July and 5 August 1814, SNPLB, pp.173-175 and pp.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 roll 38. William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 3, 5 and 13 August 1814, SNPLB, pp.176-180. 65 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #132, 10 August 1813, SNLRC, 1814 vol 5 item 84 roll 38. However, Chauncey was well enough on 16 July to dine with Vincent LeRay de Chaumont, a notable local citizen, contractor and landowner; Vincent LeRay de Chaumont to David Parish, 24 July 1814, PRC folder 1552c. 66 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #140, 19 August 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 5 item 113 roll 38.
20 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Chauncey began his reply to Secretary Jones by stating that he definitely had “space to build three ships at the same time of the largest class.”67 Chauncey knew that Jones would assume he meant space at Sackets Harbor, and that was simply not true. Chauncey had already decided on using Storrs Harbor to build one ship of the line, but this fact he neglected to mention.
Chauncey next addressed Jones’ question about timber, declaring that two “liners” could be completed by 15 May, thereby casually extending Jones’ deadline by about a month. He then stated that finishing a third ship of the line in the time required would be questionable because of the “difficulty which I apprehend will be found in procuring timber of sufficient dimensions for vessels of so large a class.” This was a ridiculous assertion which anyone visiting Sackets Harbor would realize immediately. As later experience proved, even with all the ships previously built, thousands of acres of primary forest remained in the vicinity and finding suitable timber for the new ships was never a problem.68 Those with knowledge of warship construction at Boston, Philadelphia or Washington, however, would not find this premise unusual as suitable timber for ships could not be obtained near those locations. Chauncey knew that no one at the Navy Department in Washington had ever visited the Sackets Harbor area and he believed his timber “difficulty” would not be questioned, and he was right.
Chauncey then informed Jones that he would require at least 930 workmen to build the three ships, plus time (and, by inference, money) to construct numerous additional workshops beyond those already in existence. This was an accurate statement, but that number of men was twice 1814’s total and Chauncey presented it in detail by category to give Jones the full effect:
600 Ship carpenters 25 Block and pump makers 10 Armorers 60 Ship joiners 10 Boat builders 5 Tinmen 60 Pair or 120 sawyers 10 Spar makers 75 Blacksmiths 15 Carriage makers TOTAL 930
This crew working six days a week over a five month period (mid-December to mid-May) at prevailing wages of up to $3.00 per day plus board would cost the United States Treasury at least
67 This and the subsequent quotations from Chauncey’s letter are taken from Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #193, 5 November 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 7 item 104 roll 40. 68 One timber contractor, Vincent LeRay de Chaumont, expressed no concern over providing three times the quantity of timber he contracted for the year before, and that of the size needed to build “at least two 74’s.” Vincent LeRay de Chaumont to David Parish, 31 December 1814, PRC folder 1143.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 21
$200,000.69 This assuming, of course, that so many men were willing to travel to and work at Sackets and Storrs Harbors that winter. Not wanting to appear too negative, Chauncey’s letter did not mention the last two points at all, probably believing that Jones would see the problems here without the need for elaboration.
Chauncey agreed with Jones’ question about the advisability of building a rope walk at Sackets to avoid the heavy labor and expense in transporting the many large cables required.70 That it would certainly do. Building a rope walk would also require additional workmen and add to the expense of the overall project.71 Furthermore, any delay in its construction or production of the needed cables would provide an excuse for a delay in the vessels’ completion, should such an excuse be needed.
After reassuring Jones that his proposed force of three liners was “in my estimation, ample for all the purposes wished or intended by the government,” Chauncey then reached the crux of his argument. He told Jones that just “two ships of the class proposed and a frigate added to our present force would be superior to any thing that the enemy could produce in the same time.” Chauncey reasoned that while a first rate ship of the line would require at least three months to complete, a large frigate, if the timbers were prepared in advance, could be finished in less than half that time.72 If the ship of the line at Sackets Harbor was launched as soon as the ice allowed, even as late as early April, and the frigate laid down immediately thereafter, it should be ready by mid-May. This change would also require fewer guns and stores, presumably fewer workmen, and, as Chauncey knew would be a major selling point, less money. If Jones could be persuaded to accept his proposal, Chauncey had a good chance of having the new vessels safely ready for service in time to avoid another letter of censure from Jones.
Chauncey finished his dispatch with some suggestions for military operations in 1815 and reassuring words about how difficult it would be for the British at Kingston to match even the reduced shipbuilding effort he had proposed. In particular, Chauncey was “inclined to believe the enemy could not procure mechanics to perform any very extensive operations” during the time in
69 The average workman’s wage at Sackets and Storrs Harbors was $1.75 per day and $4.00 per week for board; Amos Benedict, Jacob Jones and William M. Crane to Isaac Chauncey, 3 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 334 roll 43. 70 Neither Chauncey nor Jones wanted to repeat the experience of transporting a large anchor cable and other naval stores overland to Sackets Harbor from Sandy Creek following the battle there in May 1814. 71 Chauncey’s accounts show his expenses building the rope walk between February and July 1815 totaled $6,370. This amount does not include the cost of the actual rope making machinery which was ordered from New York City; Settled Accounts, Alphabetic Series, Chauncey. 72 The 42 gun frigate Mohawk was built at Sackets Harbor in the spring of 1814 and launched after only 35 working days. Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #97, 11 June 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol. 4 item 62 roll 37.
22 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 question. He left this belief unsupported by facts or argument, probably because he had none of either. This was easy for the reader to overlook because, as a whole, Chauncey’s letter appeared to be a calm, confident, detailed and professional opinion about the positive prospects for the 1815 naval campaign on Lake Ontario.
Three days later Chauncey wrote Jones recommending against transporting the needed stores by water as the lateness of the season risked having the boats trapped in the ice on the Mohawk River. He also provided Jones with a huge and detailed list of materials that would be needed to build three 100-gun ships of the line.73 This list appears starting on page 119.
Chauncey had no way of knowing, but his suggestion to reduce the shipbuilding effort at Sackets Harbor that winter matched Secretary Jones’ own wishes. Furthermore, Chauncey need not have worried about Jones being around the following May to hold him accountable for completing the new vessels on time. When Chauncey wrote his letter, Jones’ resignation as navy secretary had been in the president’s pocket for seven weeks.74
The two ships of the line were designed to be larger and more powerful than the British St. Lawrence. Shipwrights Henry Eckford and the Brown brothers, Adam and Noah, recognized the immense effort and expense that would be required to build them and they wanted to be absolutely sure the ships would be completely adequate to guarantee that Chauncey would have command of Lake Ontario in 1815.
73 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #195, 8 November 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 7 item 114. The list of materials beginning on page 110 has been separated from this letter but appears in CLB 6. 74 William Jones to James Madison, 11 September 1814, WJP.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 23
HMS St. Lawrence at Kingston, Upper Canada, fall 1814. Painting by F. Werthman
With that goal in mind, they designed two ships that would be the largest vessels yet built in North America, each considerably larger than those William Jones had in mind. Of all the ships of the line laid down by the United States, they were second in size only to the massive Pennsylvania which was not laid down until 1822.75 Both vessels used the same design and they were huge, measuring 200 feet long on the lower gun deck with a beam of over 56 feet. Each would easily be a match for the British 102-gun St. Lawrence.
Unfortunately there is no single source that presents all the known or reported specifications for this design. In some cases the values given in the sources differ slightly as shown in Table 4 which presents the major sources for the details of these two ships.
75 The vessels Jones planned would have been over ten feet shorter and four feet narrower than the New Orleans and Chippewa; see Table 1; William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 24 October 1814, SNPLB, pp.184-202.
24 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Table 4 – Primary Source Specifications of the New Orleans Class Ships of the line Chauncey’s Aldersley’s Malloy’s Metcalf’s Letterbook Report Measurements Values Chippewa New Orleans New Orleans New Orleans Item (1815)76 (1816)77 (1842)78 (1860)79 85 Tonnage 2,805 /95 3,000 Length of the keel 187 feet 6 183 feet 6 183 feet 7½ inches inches inches Length of the keel for tonnage 170 feet Length of the lower gun deck 200 feet Length from the fore part of 204 feet the stem to the aft part of the stern post at the height of the transom Length over all 214 feet Moulded beam midships 54 feet 10 inches 55 feet 7 inches 55 feet 3 inches Extreme beam 56 feet 56 feet 10 56 feet inches Height of the wing transom 25 feet Height keel to rail (minimum) 41 feet Height keel to rail (maximum) 47 feet Depth of hold from lower gun 17 feet 9 inches deck From lower gun deck to the 5 feet 6 inches under side of the main deck beams Draught 27 feet Gun ports on lower deck 34 Gun ports on main deck 36 Gun ports on spar deck 36 Total gun ports 106 106 110 (carry 120) Planned Armament 70 long 32’s long 18’s and 8 long 24’s short 42’s 28 short 42’s Broadside Weight 1,804 pounds
The tonnage value is tons burthen and not the weight of water displaced by the warship which became the usual measurement later that century. In 1815 there was no way to easily determine displacement. Instead, a formula known as “Builders Old Measurement” was used. Originally designed to allow the carrying capacity of different merchant ships to be compared, the formula took the keel length specified for the tonnage calculation times the square of the extreme beam
76 Dimensions of the Ship Building for the U. States at Store’s Harbor, Lake Ontario by Adam & Noah Brown, CLB 7, p.558. These figures appear at the very end of this letterbook along with two sets of mast and spar dimensions making it probable that these were design values. 77 John Aldersley to William Fitz William Owen, 24 February 1816, NAUK, ADM 1/2265 p.367, LAC film B-2786. 78 Asa Malloy to Augustus Ford, 6 May 1842 included in Ford to Navy Commissioners, 6 May 1842, NCLRC, entry 220. These are the result of actual measurements of the New Orleans as it sat on the stocks. 79 Lossing, Benson J., The Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812 (New York, 1869, repr. Benchmark Publishing Co. 1970) p.616.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 25 then divided that by 190 yielding a value in tons. Of course warships carried no cargo but by 1815 the formula was used by both the United States and the Royal Navy.80 The smaller keel length value may have been an attempt to correct for the difference in hull forms between warships and merchant vessels. The values are consistent except for those involving the extreme beam where Chauncey’s design values are smaller than Malloy’s actual measurements and the physical keel length where Malloy’s measurement is slightly smaller than the value given to author Benson Lossing by Shipkeeper Henry Metcalf in 1860.
It is possible that Henry Eckford built the New Orleans with a slightly larger beam than what his design called for. More likely, after sitting on the stocks for 27 years with what British foreman of shipwrights John Aldersley called inadequate supports, settling of the massive wooden hull had made the beam measurements slightly larger than they were in 1815.81
The difference in keel length, an insignificant 1.5 inches, can be explained by the difficulty in making an accurate measurement at the very bottom of the hull inside a dimly lit shiphouse.82 The measuring instruments used in 1842 and 1860 may also have had that much error, which was less than one-tenth of one percent. Finally, we know Malloy actually measured the New Orleans himself whereas there is no guarantee Metcalf did before speaking to Lossing. Metcalf may have been reporting a figure provided by others or even one from memory. In this case Malloy’s value is used.
In his letterbook, Isaac Chauncey provides two sets of mast and spar specifications. One is specifically for the Chippewa at Storrs Harbor. The second is apparently for a generic ship of the line but one with the same length between perpendiculars (204 feet) and extreme beam (56 feet) as the Chippewa and New Orleans. In both cases the masts and spars are considerably larger than what was usual for a 110-gun ship of the line in Royal Navy service as shown by the 1815 Burney edition of Falconer. The differences appear in Tables 5 and 6.
80 The British used a divisor of 188. Note that the formula usually cited uses half the beam divided by 95 (US) or 94 (British). The formula given is mathematically equivalent and simpler. 81 John Aldersley to William Fitz William Owen, 24 February 1816, NAUK, ADM 1/2265 p.367, LAC film B-2786. 82 Aldersely’s 1816 report had the keel five feet longer but it is doubtful he actually measured it. Instead he probably reported the value he was given by his escort.
26 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Table 5 – Primary Source Mast Specifications of the New Orleans Class Ships of the line Chauncey, Chauncey, Line-of- Falconer 1815, Chippewa Battle Ship 110-gun Ship83 Length Diameter Length Diameter Length Diameter feet inches feet inches feet inches 2 Main Mast 130 43 128 42 /3 117 39 Main Top 73 25 77 25 70 20¾ 5 Main Top Gallant 38 13 38 13 35 11 /8 Main Top Gall Royal 20 7 38[?] 9 2 Fore Mast 117 42 114 37 /3 104 34½ Fore Top 66 24 69 25 53 20¾ Fore Top Gallant 34 11½ 34 11¼ 31 10¾ Fore Top Gall Royal 16 6 34[?] 8 Mizzen Mast 110 28 112 26 101 23 Mizzen Top 54 17 57 16 52 14 5 Mizzen Top Gallant 28 9 29 9 26 8 /8 Mizzen Top Gall 15 5 29[?] 9 Royal Bowsprit 80 40 69 42 74 37 Jib Boom 58 18 60 20 53 15½ Driver Boom 74 10 Lower Studding Boom 62 13 Main Top boom 58 12 Main Top Gall Boom 43 8 Fore Top Boom 52 11 Fore Top Gall Boom 38 7½ Ensign Staff 50 9 Jack Staff 21 6
83 From tables in 1815 Falconer’s Marine Dictionary revised by Burney and printed in James Lees, Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1984) p.200.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 27
Table 6 – Primary Source Spar Specifications of the New Orleans Class Ships of the line Chauncey, Chauncey, Line-of- Falconer 1815, Chippewa Battle Ship 110-gun Ship84 Length Diameter Length Diameter Length Diameter feet inches feet inches feet inches Main Yard 115 29 114 26 102 24 Main Topsail Yard 85 21 81 18½ 73 15½ Main Topgallant Yard 62 13 54 10½ 49 10 Main Top Gall Royal 45 9 41 8 32 7¾ Fore Mast Yard 104 26 100 22½ 89 21 3 Fore Topsail Yard 75 18½ 70 15 65 13 /8 5 Fore Topgallant Yd 55 12 46 9 43 8 /8 7 Fore Top Gall Royal 40 8 35 7½ 27 6 /8 Mizzen Mast Yard 96 20 97 17½ 87 16 1 Mizzen Topsail Yard 70 14 54 11¼ 49 10 /8 Mizzen Topgallant Yd 50 10 36 7¼ 21 4½ Mizzen Top Gall 36 7 27 5½ Royal
Merging the details from all known primary sources, the design values for the New Orleans and Chippewa are given in Tables 7 and 8.
84 From tables in 1815 Falconer’s Marine Dictionary revised by Burney and printed in Lees, James, Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1984) p.200.
28 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Table 7 – Specifications for the New Orleans Class 85
85 Tonnage (BOM) 2,805 /95 Length of the keel 183 feet 6 inches Length of the keel for tonnage 170 feet Length of the lower gun deck 200 feet Length from the fore part of the stem to the aft part 204 feet of the stern post at the height of the transom Length over all 214 feet86 Moulded beam midships 54 feet 10 inches Extreme beam 56 feet Height of the wing transom 25 feet Height keel to rail (minimum) 41 feet Height keel to rail (maximum) 47 feet Depth of hold from lower gun deck 17 feet 9 inches From lower gun deck to the under side of the main 5 feet 6 inches deck beams Draught 27 feet Gun ports on lower deck 34 Gun ports on main deck 36 Gun ports on spar deck 36 Total gun ports87 106 Planned Armament 70 long 32’s 8 long 24’s 28 short 42’s Broadside Weight 1,804 pounds
85 Letter from Asa Malloy to shipkeeper Augustus Ford at Sackets Harbor, 6 May 1842 enclosed in a letter from Ford to the Navy Commissioners of the same date; NCLRC, SHL; and from information provided by shipkeeper Henry Metcalf to Benson Lossing in 1860, in Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812 (NY, 1869; repr. Glendale NY: Benchmark Publishing, 1970) p.616. 86 This is an unusual measurement and it is not clear exactly what it means. It was taken from the information Shipkeeper Henry Metcalf provided to author Benson Lossing about 1860 and may have been the result of the hull having settled and expanded after having been on the stocks for 45 years. Thanks to Clay Nans for suggesting that this measurement needed more explanation. 87 The lower and main deck gun port values are confirmed by photographs taken of the hull after its enclosing ship house collapsed in 1880, see page 110.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 29
Table 8 - Mast and Spar Dimensions for the New Orleans Class 88
Spars Yards Length Diameter Length Diameter feet inches feet inches Main Mast 130 43 115 29 Main Top 73 25 85 21 Main Top Gallant 38 13 62 13 Main Top Gall Royal 20 7 45 9 Fore Mast 117 42 104 26 Fore Top 66 24 75 18½ Fore Top Gallant 34 11½ 55 12 Fore Top Gall Royal 16 6 40 8 Mizzen Mast 110 28 96 20 Mizzen Top 54 17 70 14 Mizzen Top Gallant 28 9 50 10 Mizzen Top Gall 15 5 36 7 Royal Bowsprit 80 40 Jib Boom 58 18 Driver Boom 74 10 Lower Studding Boom 62 13 Main Top boom 58 12 Main Top Gall Boom 43 8 Fore Top Boom 52 11 Fore Top Gall Boom 38 7½ Ensign Staff 50 9 Jack Staff 21 6 Fore Boom 10 13
Compared with other British and American ships of the line, the New Orleans class were very large vessels. Table 9 give some comparative statistics and Table 10 presents those as relative values where the New Orleans is always 1.0.
88 Dimensions of the Ship Building for the U. States at Store’s Harbor, Lake Ontario, CLB 7, p.558. The same source also gives A List of Spars of a Line of Battle Ship 204 feet between the perpendiculars and 56 feet Beam and those values are slightly smaller.
30 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Table 9 – Comparative Statistics for U. S. and British Ships of the line
United States Great Britain Item New Orleans Independence Pennsylvania St. Lawrence Wolfe Victory Caledonia Laid Down 1815 1814 1821 1814 1815 1765 1808 Tons Burthen 2,850 2,243 3,105 2,305 2,153 2,142 2,616 Keel (feet) 183’ 6” 173’ 6” 157’ 8” 157’ 8” 151’ 4” 170’ 11” Lower gundeck 200’ 190’ 10” 205’ 191’ 2” 191’ 3” 186’ 205’ Breadth extreme 56’ 10” 54’ 7½” 56’ 9” 52’ 7” 50’ 6” 51’ 10” 53’ 6” Depth of hold 17’ 9” 24’ 4” 24’ 4” 18’ 6” 18’ 4” 21’ 6” 23’ 2” Guns carried 106 87 120 102 106 100 120 Tons/Gun 26.9 25.8 25.9 22.6 20.3 21.4 21.8
Table 10 – Comparative Ratios for U. S. and British Ships of the line
United States Great Britain Item New Orleans Independence Pennsylvania St. Lawrence Wolfe Victory Caledonia Tons Burthen 1.00 0.76 1.05 0.78 0.73 0.73 0.89 Keel 1.00 0.95 0.86 0.86 0.83 0.93 Lower gundeck 1.00 0.95 1.03 0.96 0.96 0.93 1.03 Breadth extreme 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.93 0.89 0.91 0.94 Depth of hold 1.00 1.37 1.37 1.04 1.04 1.21 1.31 Tons/Gun 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.86 0.77 0.81 0.83
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 31
ARMAMENT
he new ships of the line would have an extremely heavy armament. The two gun decks T would be armed with 32-pound cannon and the top (or spar) deck would have eight 24- pound cannon and 28, 42-pound carronades.
A reproduction 32-pound cannon at Fort Kentucky, A 32-pound carronade in front of the visitor’s center at Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site, Sackets Sackets Harbor NY. Photograph by the author. Harbor NY. Photograph by the author. The 42-pound carronade was similar and was about 4 This cannon is 10.4 feet (3.2 meters) long and weighs feet (1.2 meters) long and weighed about 2,500 pounds about 6,500 pounds (2,950 kg.). It has a 6.5 in bore (16.5 (1,134 kg.) It has a 6.85 inch bore (17.4 cm.) and is cm.) and has a range of about 1,900 yards (1,740 ineffective at a range beyond 500 yards (365 meters). meters) at 5o elevation. This armament produced a 1,804 pound broadside, enough to wreck a frigate and, it was hoped, to defeat the British ship of the line St. Lawrence. A major problem for the Navy Department was getting the cannon to Sackets Harbor in time.
32 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
PAYING FOR IT ALL
y the middle of 1814, maintaining the naval establishment at Sackets Harbor was draining B the United States treasury of vast sums of money. As Table 11 shows, during June and July 1814 alone, Commodore Chauncey drew on the navy agent at New York City, Dr. John Bullus, for almost $268,000 to pay for the naval activities at Sackets Harbor, including shipbuilding, naval stores and provisions.89 This sum, of course, did not include the amount expended to pay the thousands of sailors, marines, and officers stationed there, nor did it include purchases made by Chauncey that did not go through the navy agent at New York City, or by Bullus himself for use at Sackets Harbor.
Table 11 – Chauncey’s Payments, Summer 1814
Date In Favor Of Amount For 8 June 1814 Jonathan Walton & Co. $95,000.00 Transporting men and naval stores 8 June 1814 John F. DeGraff $13,364.24 Transporting men and naval stores 8 June 1814 Henry Eckford $50,000.00 Shipbuilding 29 June 1814 Amos Salisbury $861.77 Manufacture of cordage 29 June 1814 John Shaw $851.85 Manufacture of cordage 9 July 1814 Henry Eckford $83,132.72 Shipbuilding 10 July 1814 Joshua Foreman $9,041.50 Manufacturing and transporting shot and kentledge 27 July 1814 James Kissam $8,000.00 Navy bread 30 July 1814 John J. DeGraff $7,723.12 Rice Total $267,975.20
In mid-August 1814, as his squadron was blockading Kingston hoping to entice British Commodore Sir James Yeo to leave port and fight, Chauncey received word that $50,000 of his bills, drawn on Bullus in June to pay Henry Eckford for his shipbuilding efforts at Sackets Harbor, had been “protested.” When Eckford took the bills approved by Bullus to the bank, the government’s account did not contain sufficient funds to pay them. In other words, the checks “bounced.”
This came as a total surprise to Chauncey, and his concern for the future was evident from the letter he immediately wrote to Bullus:
89 Letters from Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus of the dates shown, CLB 5 and 6. The total amount over the two- month period was nearly 4% of the entire Navy Department budget for 1814.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 33
I have never received an intimation from you that bills drawn in my official capacity would not be paid as usual. You must be aware sir that the whole naval operations upon this lake must cease if the bills which I draw as a public agent are not regularly paid.90
Worse was to come. One by one, Chauncey received word that his bills, drawn on Bullus since June, had all been protested. Chauncey had the unpleasant task of writing to his creditors to explain the situation and express the hope that he would “soon to have the satisfaction of hearing that they have all been paid.”91 Chauncey wrote to Secretary Jones on the matter, complaining that if his bills drawn on the Navy Department “are not regularly paid that it will paralize [sic] our whole operations on this station and place me in a most awkward predicament.”92 Chauncey’s awkward predicament reflected more than just his embarrassment. According to the law at the time, he was personally responsible for the bills he signed and if not paid promptly his creditors could have him imprisoned for debt.
Financial difficulties were not limited to Lake Ontario. By the fall of 1814 they were nation- wide. This Samuel T. Anderson discovered when, in October 1814, he received his orders to transport the required naval stores to Sackets Harbor as fast as possible. Problems at the Treasury Department, however, forced a two week delay before he received enough money, some $20,000, to start work. This amount was in Treasury Notes, a form which gave Anderson considerable difficulty in negotiating, particularly in upstate New York.93 This delay, Chauncey’s unpaid bills, and Anderson’s subsequent difficulties were symptoms of a serious financial malaise which was gradually paralyzing the United States’ war effort. By the accounting standards of a later century, the United States was bankrupt.
Most of the government’s financial difficulty arose from two sources. The first was the reluctance of Congress to pass legislation that would increase internal taxes, preferring instead to pay for the war by floating loans. By the end of 1814, these loans amounted to over 60 million dollars, an immense sum for the time.94 Even with high interest rates, finding subscribers for these loans became more and more difficult as the war progressed. The second circumstance was the nature of the money supply, business and banking in the 1812-1815 period.
90 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 20 August 1814, CLB 6. Chauncey allowed Bullus 30 days to obtain the funds from Washington to pay Eckford, a period previously sufficient. 91 For example Isaac Chauncey to Jonathan Walton and Co., 25 September 1814, CLB 6. 92 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones, 20 August 1814, SNLRC 1814 vol 5 item 121 roll 38. 93 William Jones to Samuel T. Anderson, 7 November 1814, SNLSC, p.226 roll 176. Until February 1815 Treasury Notes were only issued in denominations of $1,000, $100 and $20, amounts much too large to be convenient for day- to-day use as currency, even when the vendor was willing to accept them. 94 Loans authorized by Congress on 14 March 1812, 8 February and 2 August 1813, 24 March and 15 November 1814, a total of $62,500,000 of which only $50,792,693 was ever subscribed to.
34 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
In 1814 the United States did not have, and never had, a common standard currency of exchange. The Treasury did mint some gold and silver coins, but they were in denominations too large and in quantity too small to meet the day to day needs of the citizens. This demand was filled, in part, by foreign coins from Great Britain, France, Spain and even such countries as Holland and Portugal. These were known, collectively, as “specie” and were readily accepted as payment for goods and services. Unfortunately, even after considering foreign coinage, the number of these in circulation was still too small to meet the needs of business.
The gap was filled by a collection of paper known as “bank notes.” Banks were chartered and regulated by the individual states and most issued paper bills which were, in effect, promissory notes. These could, if desired, be redeemed at that bank for specie supposedly on deposit. Regulation was minimal, and the system depended on trust and the reputation of the issuing bank. As these notes could only be redeemed at the bank of origin, the more distant that bank, the higher the discount applied to that bank’s notes. For example, a $5.00 note from a well-known bank in New York City might be accepted at par there, but worth only $4.50 at Albany and $4.00 at Sackets Harbor. Notes from lesser banks in smaller locales might be non-negotiable 100 miles away. And, of course, if the issuing bank failed, its notes became worthless.
Later, during the war, this situation was complicated by paper notes called “Army Bills” arriving from Canada. As these were supposedly backed by the Bank of England, they were considered almost as good as specie, but the fact that they were supported by a bank located in the enemy’s capital caused some to consider their use in business transactions as unpatriotic. It was also not clear how, or when, or even if they could be redeemed for specie should the possessor wish to do so during the war.
On top of this, the United States Treasury started the war in 1812 having lost much of its financial flexibility. Until its federal charter expired the previous year, the national Bank of the United States had branches in major cities and it made receiving, transferring and disbursing government funds reasonably convenient. A deposit in Washington could be transferred “on the books” to a branch in New York City and paid to a contractor from there often without the need to actually move that amount in gold and silver. When Congress failed to re-charter the Bank of
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 35 the United States, those Treasury deposits were distributed to state-chartered banks located around the country and transfers became much more difficult.95
Complicating the situation was the growing difficulty of financing the war itself. Beginning at the end of June 1812, the United States issued special loan instruments called Treasury Notes to cover the growing budget deficit.96 These could be used as paper money but they carried an official annual interest rate of 5¼ to 5½% and were supposed to be redeemed in specie in one year. As the war progressed, redemption became more and more difficult. Finally, redemption became fiscally impossible. By the beginning of December 1814 these unredeemed Treasury Notes amounted to over $1,900,000 with an additional $1,243,000 due for redemption before year’s end.97 By the end of the war the total amount of outstanding Treasury Notes, including those due but unredeemed, was almost $18,500,000,98 an amount greater than the total federal revenues for any single year since the United States was created.
An 11 February 1815 $100.00 Treasury Note Consequently, as 1814 progressed, banks, merchants and contractors became increasingly unwilling to accept Treasury Notes, even after their value was discounted by the official interest
95 “List of Banks in which public monies are deposited to the credit of the Treasurer of the U. States (n.d.),” Daniel Parker Papers, Box 22 Folder 10, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA. The two New York banks most useful to Samuel T. Anderson were the Manhattan Bank and the Mechanics Bank. 96 Acts of Congress passed on 30 June 1812, 25 February 1813, 4 March and 26 December 1814 and 24 February 1815 authorized the issuance of up to 40 million dollars in Treasury Notes. 97 Alexander James Dallas to William Lowndes, 2 December 1814 in Dallas, Alexander James, Life and Writings of Alexander James Dallas by his son George Mifflin Dallas (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1871) pp.253-254. 98 Pitkin, Timothy, A Statistical View of the Commerce of the United States (Hartford: Charles Hosmer, 1816) p.295. Pitkin was a Congressman from Connecticut before, during and after the War of 1812.
36 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 rate. If they accepted them at all, it was only after discounts of 10% or more.99 The accountant of the navy, however, was not authorized by Congress to allow any discount whatever when settling the accounts of officers and agents such as Samuel T. Anderson. If these men paid for goods and services with discounted Treasury Notes, they were left with a considerable balance due from them to the United States after their accounts were settled as they would have paid more in Treasury Notes than were covered by the receipts they received.100
By the fall of 1814, reacting to the overall financial situation in the United States and the growing concern over the increasing amount of unredeemed Treasury Notes, banks outside of New England suspended specie payments completely, refusing to redeem drafts and even their own notes for coinage. This rendered inter-bank transfers of government deposits impossible, leaving some 45 banks, nationwide, with government money on the books but only a small fraction of this money was readily accessible to Anderson.101 Secretary of the Treasury Alexander James Dallas attempted to convince banks to allow United States government deposits to be converted to specie for transfer, but the war ended before he succeeded.102 This situation only exacerbated Anderson’s funding and contracting problems.
The final nail in the United States’ financial coffin was the increase, since 1812, of the cost of almost everything. By the summer of 1814 prices for some articles at New York City, such as turpentine, were almost three times what they were in 1812, and the inflation rate was even higher at remote locales such as Sackets Harbor. The overall wholesale price index at New York City rose 39% between 1812 and 1814.103 Samuel T. Anderson had the unpleasant task of trying to pay for goods and services which seemed to become more expensive each week, with a very limited supply of a form of “money” that was, itself, increasingly worthless.
By October 1814, lack of money at Sackets Harbor had become a major problem. Isaac Chauncey’s requisitions to the Navy Department for funds were going unanswered, or were
99 One land agent, Elisha Camp at Sackets Harbor, was told “You will until otherwise instructed take United States Treasury Notes at Ten per Cent discount from New York Bank Bills.” At Sackets Harbor, New York Bank Bills themselves were discounted as much as 10% from their face value making the effective Treasury Note discount required by Camp as high as 20%; letter from Henry Champion and Lemuel Storrs to Elisha Camp, 26 January 1815, Elisha Camp Papers, Cornell University Rare Books and Manuscripts #696 box 1. 100 One such officer was Lieutenant John D. Sloat who, while recruiting for the frigate United States at New York in January 1815, had to pay sailors their recruiting bounty in Treasury Notes discounted 7½% against the local bank notes which left him owing the United States almost $500. ASPNA Vol 4 No. 492 p.268, 9 January 1833. 101 Treasury deposits in all banks as of November 28, 1814 totaled almost $2,400,000, however less than $16,000 of that amount was available at the most convenient bank for Anderson to use, the Utica NY branch of the Manhattan Bank; Dallas, Life and Writings, pp.254-255. 102 Treasury Department Circular, 25 November 1814, H.Doc 15, 28th Congress, 1st Session, p.602. 103 Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 2 vol.(Washington: Department of Commerce, 1976).
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 37 answered with drafts specifying Treasury Notes but the notes themselves not always available.104 By the end of November 1814 Chauncey wrote to Jones that $100,000 was urgently needed because
We are now really in distress – the people we owe for provisions have become extremely importunate – the discharged sailors are also clamorous – the officers are in much distress as they have all large balances due them but cannot raise funds to pay their wash bills, besides they have been living on ship’s fare for several weeks.105
This situation was probably the topic of much wardroom conversation, especially at mealtime.
104 For example, Isaac Chauncey to Thomas T. Tucker, Treasurer of the United States, 16 December 1815, CLB 7. Chauncey received a draft for $50,000 in Treasury Notes but the “notes have not yet been received at the Loan Office.” 105 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #199, 24 November 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 8 item 44 roll 41.
38 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
CONTRACT COMPLICATIONS
ecretary Jones knew the shipbuilding task at Sackets required the talents of shipwrights with S experience on the lakes and that meant Henry Eckford and the Brown brothers, Adam and Noah. Eckford began his experience on Lake Ontario with the building of the gun brig Oneida at Oswego in 1808-1809.106 During the war he had supervised the construction of all the warships built at Sackets Harbor. Noah Brown had supervised warship construction on Lakes Erie and Champlain. Having accepted Chauncey’s recommendation to build only two ships of the line and one large frigate that winter, Jones wrote to the New York Navy Agent, John Bullus, and ordered that he “immediately engage them” to build the new vessels on Lake Ontario.107
Jones heard “from private sources” that the Brown brothers had claimed to be able to build two ships of the line at Sackets Harbor in two months.108 This was hyperbole of the worst sort. Even on the Atlantic such a feat would have been extremely difficult; at Sackets
Henry Eckford Harbor it was impossible and the Brown brothers certainly knew it. This information, however, caused Jones to believe that Eckford and the Browns would be willing to commit to a “short and definite period for their completion.”109 He was disappointed. Their first contract proposal was unsatisfactory, promising only to have the vessels completed “as early as possible in the spring.”110 Jones considered this time frame “so loose as to afford no certainty”111 and he asked Navy Agent Bullus to press them for a more definite completion date.
That Eckford and the Browns were extremely reluctant to commit to a definite completion date is wholly understandable. They knew, perhaps better than anyone, what was required and the difficulties they would have to overcome. The frigate was a known entity, a copy of the Superior would do. Building the two ships of the line, however, was the largest task they had ever undertaken and they could only guess how long it would take.112 They did know, however, that it
106 John Rodgers to Robert Smith, 23 July 1808, SNLRC, 1808 vol 3 item 30 roll 12. 107 William Jones to John Bullus, 20 November 1814, SNPLB, pp.212-213. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. 110 William Jones to John Bullus, 28 November 1814, SNPLB, pp.213-215. 111 Ibid. 112 See Tables 4 and 5 for a comparison between the New Orleans class and other ships of the line
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 39 took the British at least six months to build the St. Lawrence, and most of that time was during the summer.
Eckford and the Browns also proposed a cost of $80.00 per ton, “United States tonnage,” a specification Jones was unfamiliar with. It was also unclear whether the contractors or the United States would be responsible for furnishing the building materials. Overall, as Jones told Bullus, he found their conditions “too loosely expressed.”113 Jones never received an acceptable contract proposal before he left office.
Jones wasn’t the only one concerned about contracts. After he received Jones’ letter asking about the shipbuilding potential at Sackets Harbor, and expecting to receive an order to proceed with their construction at any time, Isaac Chauncey wrote to the iron furnaces at Rome and Onondaga asking what quantity of shot and kentledge they could provide by May of 1815.114 Three weeks later he was still waiting for orders from Jones. When the owner of the Onondaga Furnace inquired about contracts, Chauncey was forced to reply that as he had “not received any instructions from the Navy Department to augment the force on this lake” no contract could be concluded at that time.115 Furthermore, the delay let the roads to Sackets Harbor reach their usual late-fall condition: “impassable.”116
113 William Jones to John Bullus, 28 November 1814, SNPLB, pp.213-215. 114 Isaac Chauncey to Joshua Forman and to Matthew Brown, both 4 November 1814, CLB 6. 115 Isaac Chauncey to Joshua Forman, 23 November 1814, CLB 6. 116 Isaac Chauncey to Jonathan Walton & Co., 23 November 1814, CLB 6.
40 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
STEAM FRIGATES?
ven after he issued his orders, William Jones remained uncomfortable with the plan. In E early November he explored an alternative. At the end of September, Robert Fulton’s steam frigate (or “battery”) Fulton was launched at New York City.117 Jones asked Stephen Decatur to meet with Fulton himself and New York Governor Daniel D. Tompkins. The three men were asked to report whether they believed that three such vessels could be completed at Sackets Harbor “in due time” and, combined with the existing naval force on Lake Ontario, whether they would be “competent to subdue all the force the enemy may have prepared for service at that time.”118
Decatur, Fulton and Tompkins met and recommended against substituting even one such steam frigate for the ships now planned to be built at Sackets Harbor.119 Fulton in particular was concerned that a steam vessel such as the Fulton, while satisfactory for harbor defense, would perhaps have problems on “a lake as turbulent as the ocean.”120 This opinion was echoed by Tompkins who did not believe “that vessels of this description would be formidable on the ocean, or in broad waters, or that they would be the most advisable armament for Lake Ontario.”121 Jones, however, was not ready to abandon this alternative.
Launch of the steam frigate Fulton at New York City, 29 October 1814 NAUS Photo NH 53970
117 Henry Rutgers to William Jones, 2 November 1814, SNLRM, 1814 vol 7 item 93½ roll 66. Fulton himself called this vessel Demologos, it was changed to Fulton after his death in early 1815. 118 William Jones to Stephen Decatur, 8 November 1814, NAUS, RG 45, SNPLB, p.207, T829 roll 453. 119 Daniel D. Tompkins to Stephen Decatur, 14 November 1814, Tompkins vol III p.597; Stephen Decatur to William Jones, 16 November 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 7 item 135 roll 40. 120 Robert Fulton to Decatur, November 15, 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 7 item 135 roll 40. 121 Daniel D. Tompkins to Stephen Decatur, 14 November 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 7 item 135 roll 40.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 41
Before he received Decatur’s report, William Jones wrote to Isaac Chauncey and ordered him to proceed immediately to New York to examine the Fulton and determine “whether one, two or three of those may not be substituted for the whole or a part of the force” planned to be built at Sackets Harbor.122 As one of his last acts before leaving office, Jones again wrote Chauncey and informed him that, although Decatur, Fulton and Tompkins had “reported against” building steam frigates at Sackets Harbor, Jones would leave the final decision to Chauncey. Should Chauncey be in favor of building steam frigates instead of ships of the line, Jones authorized him “to take the necessary measures for that purpose.”123 Chauncey wisely agreed with the committee’s recommendation against building steam warships on Lake Ontario, declaring that it would “not be advisable to substitute a steam frigate for any part of the force contemplated to be built on Lake Ontario” and the original plan remained intact.124
It is to Chauncey’s credit that he concurred with the committee’s decision instead of overruling it and proceeding to build steam frigates instead of ships of the line at Sackets and Storrs Harbors. A decision to build steam frigates would have made the shipbuilding time schedule so uncertain that Chauncey would have had many irrefutable excuses were the vessels completion delayed past May. Chauncey himself declared that “the experiment at this time might involve consequences fatal to the interest of the nation.”125 Of course, by the time Chauncey wrote to the Navy Department agreeing with Decatur’s committee he knew that Jones had resigned and was no longer in a position to hold him accountable for any delays, which may have encouraged him to make the correct decision.
122 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 16 November 1814, SNPLB, p.209. 123 William Jones to Isaac Chauncey, 30 November 1814, SNPLB, pp.223-225. 124 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin Homans #216, 18 December 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 8 item 121, M125 roll 41. 125 Ibid.
42 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
FAREWELL TO JONES
illiam Jones spent his last weeks in office attempting to arrange as many of the details of W that winter’s shipbuilding effort on Lake Ontario as possible. He knew that his departure left the Navy Department temporarily in the hands of the chief clerk, Benjamin Homans, and he foresaw problems as a result. When Jones arrived at the Navy Department in January 1813, he replaced the long-serving chief clerk Charles Washington Goldsborough with Homans. Unfortunately, Jones and Homans never established a close relationship, and Homans was rarely privy to Jones’ thoughts and plans. As Purser Samuel Hambleton expressed to Oliver Hazard Perry earlier that year, “the first mate does not know much of what passes in the cabin.”126 Jones was concerned that whatever problems remained after his departure might not be solved properly, solved in a timely fashion, or even solved at all.
On the first of December 1814, as scheduled, William Jones’s resignation as Secretary of the Navy became effective and direction of the Navy Department was left in the caretaker hands of Chief Clerk Homans. President Madison began a public effort to replace Jones, but many weeks passed before he succeeded.
As Jones feared, Homans never felt authorized to make changes in policy or procedure, regardless of the provocation. For the next six critical weeks the details of exactly how now former-Secretary Jones’ plans would be implemented were left in the hands of the man on the spot: Isaac Chauncey.
126 Samuel Hambleton to Oliver Hazard Perry, 31 March 1814, Perry Papers, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 43
FINAL PREPARATIONS
n 2 December 1814 Isaac Chauncey left Sackets Harbor for New York City, arriving eight O days later. There he met with Henry Eckford and Adam and Noah Brown and encountered a problem. The United States owed all three men quite a sum of money from their 1814 shipbuilding contracts at New York City and on Lakes Ontario and Champlain, and they were not willing to sign a new contract or depart for Sackets Harbor until those accounts were settled. Eckford, in particular, was extremely sensitive to matters of payment. The previous August he had deposited two Navy Department checks totaling $50,000 in a New York bank only to have those checks rejected for insufficient funds.127
Eckford and the Brown brothers insisted that they receive a minimum of $100,000 against their old contracts to cover immediate expenses on a new contract to build ships at Sackets Harbor. They also insisted that they wanted payment in “current money” and not in Treasury Notes as they were not willing to accept the loss due to the discount involved in negotiating those notes at the banks. Recognizing the government’s inability to pay Eckford and the Browns in anything but Treasury Notes, Chauncey wrote to Homans and recommended allowing them the discount as “time is of the first importance” and there was no time to negotiate.128 Chauncey apparently convinced Eckford and the Brown brothers that the money would be forthcoming but that circumstances required that they conclude a new contract immediately.
A week later, Chauncey received $50,000 in Treasury Notes and at least $30,000 of that amount was given to Henry Eckford and the Browns to enable them to proceed to Sackets Harbor.129 Apparently this advance amount was satisfactory, but the discount adjustment they wanted was not allowed.
On 15 December, in the offices of the New York navy agent, Dr. John Bullus, Henry Eckford and the Brown brothers signed a contract with Chauncey to build “two ships of the line and one large frigate” at a cost to the United States of $80.00 per ton, exclusive of armament, sails, rigging, cabin furniture and naval stores. Furthermore, Eckford and the Browns promised to have the vessels ready to be launched “as early as the ice will permit and if possible by the 15th of May
127 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #141 and Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, both 20 August 1812, SNLRC, 1814 vol 5 item 121 roll 38 and CLB 6. 128 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin Homans #211, 10 December 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 8 item 99 roll 41. 129 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin Homans #213 and #215, 16 and 17 December 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 8 items 116 and 120 roll 41.
44 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 next.”130 As this date conveniently matched that which Chauncey had earlier proposed to Jones, it seems likely that Chauncey himself suggested that it be included as a target. Conveniently forgotten was the original goal of having all the warships ready for sea by the opening of lake navigation in 1815, about four weeks earlier.
Although the contract did specify a date, it was not the “definite period” that William Jones wanted. There were a lot of circumstances that could make meeting that 15 May 1815 date impossible. Furthermore, that date only called for the vessels to be launched. Jones had wanted a completion date. Following launching, the vessels would have to have their interior fittings completed and be ballasted, masted, rigged, armed and provisioned before they could sail. That work would likely take several weeks, making the actual completion date sometime in June, well beyond what Jones and Madison had planned. This would frustrate Madison’s wish to regain control of Lake Ontario as soon as the lake was open for navigation in 1815. Nevertheless, Homans accepted the contract on behalf of the United States, perhaps not fully aware of how poorly it implemented the original plan.
With a contract in place, Eckford and the Brown brothers moved quickly to collect men and material and get them to Sackets Harbor. A report from Washington dated 20 December stated that “the Messrs. Browns of New York, are collecting carpenters for that purpose, some of whom are already on their way.”131 Four days later a report came from Albany NY “that upwards of 600 ship carpenters and artificers had passed that place for the lakes.”132 Two days afterwards another Albany report stated that
Mr. Brown, ship builder, from New York, with a number of hands, ship carpenters, have
passed through this city, for Sacket’s Harbor — to proceed immediately to the building of 133 several large ships at that place — Report says, one of 120 guns, a 74, &c. &c.
By 7 January 1814, “more than 500 ship-wrights have already arrived at Sacket's Harbor and vicinity for the work.”134 Four days later, work at Sackets and Storrs Harbors was well underway:
There are near six hundred ship carpenters at this post, busily engaged in getting timber ready to build two seventy-fours and a frigate of the first class. Although surrounded by
spies, our government have reason to congratulate themselves on this one very critical point
130 NAUS, RG 45, Records of the Accountant of the Navy, Contracts. 131 Chillicothe OH, The Weekly Recorder, January 5, 1815. 132 Alexandria VA, Alexandria Gazette, January 12, 1815 133 Plattsburgh NY, Republican, December 31, 1814. 134 Boston MA, The Yankee, January 13, 1815
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 45
— that the whole of the materials for the increased naval force to be established on this lake have been contracted for, and ready for delivery, these six weeks.135
When Eckford and Adam Brown left New York for Sackets Harbor, Chauncey remained in New York to oversee the necessary preparations.136 Based on his past experience recruiting sailors for the lakes from those cities, he knew that success this time was very unlikely.137 The total number of additional men needed by May 1815 is shown by Table 12. Chauncey communicated these requirements to the new navy secretary, Benjamin W. Crowninshield, along with his opinion of their importance:
Unless very extraordinary exertions are used to obtain men the fleet of Ontario will be detained in port and not be in a situation to meet the enemy.138
Once again, finances became part of the problem as Chauncey reported to the Navy Department from New York: “The recruiting officer here has lost a great number of men for the want of funds” to pay the recruiting bounty.139
Table 12 – Additional Seamen and Marines Needed at Sackets Harbor in 1815 140
Rank Number Rank Number Armourers 3 Marine Privates 409 Boatswains 3 Marine Sergeants 15 Boys 60 Master Commandants 2 Captain 1 Midshipmen 80 Carpenters 3 Ordinary Seamen & Landsmen 1,100 Coopers 3 Pursers 4 Gunners 3 Sailing Masters 3 Lieutenants 35 Sailmakers 3 Marine 1st Lieutenants 4 Seamen 1,100 Marine 2nd Lieutenants 4 Surgeon’s Mates 19 Marine Captains 3 Surgeons 5 Marine Corporals 19 Total 2,898 Marine Music 17
135 A report dated 11 January appearing in the New York NY, Mercantile Advertiser, January 23, 1815. 136 By 26 December 1814, Adam Brown and a number of ship carpenters passed Albany on their way to Sackets Harbor. Plattsburgh NY, Republican, 31 December 1814 reprinting an article dated Albany NY, 26 December. 137 Isaac Chauncey to Thomas Brown, 12 January, 1815, CLB 6 and Isaac Chauncey to Mervine P. Mix, 12 January, 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 73 roll 42. 138 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #13, 31 January 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 94 roll 42. 139 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #6, 14 January, 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 45 roll 42. 140 An Estimate of the number of Officers and Men required to man the Fleet on Lake Ontario in addition to those already attached to the Station, attachment in Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #13, 31 January 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 94 roll 42.
46 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Chauncey recognized the difficulty he would have in obtaining these men even with the aid of the Navy Department. Furthermore, there was a constant loss of men at Sackets Harbor from the departure of those whose terms of service expired. While he was in New York City in January 1815, Chauncey ordered Lieutenant Thomas Brown to recruit 500 seamen, ordinary seaman and landsmen at Philadelphia.141 On his return to Sackets Harbor, Chauncey ordered Lieutenants Adams, Bell and Skinner to recruit men at Sackets Harbor.142 That winter Captain Jacob Jones was also recruiting seamen at New York City for service on Lake Ontario.143 Despite these efforts and others it was certain that recruiting alone would not produce the men required by May 1815.
141 Isaac Chauncey to Thomas Brown, 12 January 1815, CLB 6. 142 Isaac Chauncey to Adams, Bell and Skinner, 1 February 1815, CLB 6. 143 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 6 February 1815, CLB 6.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 47
CONSTRUCTION
hree days after signing the contract to build the warships at Sackets Harbor, Chauncey T wrote to Eckford and the Browns supposedly giving them the option to choose the “spots as in your opinion may be the most eligible for building.” Chauncey, however, limited their selection to points not beyond Storrs Harbor.144
Eckford and the Browns began hiring and dispatching workmen, particularly ship carpenters, from New York City and the Albany area to Sackets Harbor. In addition, nearby residents found welcome winter jobs as teamsters, woodcutters and laborers. The pay for such work was extremely high for the time. A skilled workman could receive as much as $3.00 per day, more than twice what he could expect in New York City or Albany. Even an unskilled laborer could bring home $25.00 a month, five dollars more than a midshipman. By early January, hundreds of men were on the road to Sackets and Storrs Harbors.
By 23 December Henry Eckford and Adam Brown left New York City for Lake Ontario.145 Sackets Harbor was no problem as Eckford had been building warships there for over two years and all the infrastructure needed to build a ship of the line was already in place. After cutting and shaping much of the wood required, the keel for the New Orleans was laid down on 23 January 1815.146
When they arrived at Storrs Harbor, however, they realized at once that it was a harbor in name only: “there was no house within a mile and the place a wilderness” but there was plenty of good timber close by.147 Before any thought could be given to laying down a ship of the line, trees had to be cut and barracks, storehouses, blacksmiths’ shops, a large mess house, “a building to make the mould in 32 feet by 70 feet” and the other necessities of life had to be built.148 Until those structures were finished, the workmen existed under canvas. The frigid January weather encouraged haste in construction, sometimes too much haste.
The Navy contracted with Samuel Alden and Oseas Hoisington to build two blockhouses, each identical to the Fort Tompkins blockhouse at Sackets Harbor, to serve as both a defense base
144 Isaac Chauncey to Henry Eckford and Adam and Noah Brown, 18 December 1814, CLB 6. 145 Isaac Chauncey to Jacob Jones, 23 December 1814, CLB 6. 146 Jacob Jones and William M. Crane to Isaac Chauncey, 3 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 34, M125 roll 43. 147Amos Benedict, Jacob Jones and William M. Crane to Isaac Chauncey, 3 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 334 roll 43; Lemuel Storrs to Elisha Camp, 29 September 1812, Elisha Camp Papers, Catalog #696 Box 1, Cornell University Archives, Ithaca, NY. 148 Amos Benedict, Jacob Jones and William M. Crane to Isaac Chauncey, 3 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 334 roll 43; Melancthon T. Woolsey to John Rodgers, 24 August 1816, NAUS, RG 45, NCLR at SHL.
48 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 and as barracks for the Marine guards.149 Their efforts left much to be desired and the two men were later fined a total of $100.00 for shoddy construction.150 Still, by February 1815, Storrs Harbor was home to over 400 civilian workmen, plus sailors on work details, Marine guards, and an undocumented but inevitable number of whiskey sellers and prostitutes there to entertain the men and separate them from their money as quickly and efficiently as possible. Constructing the necessary infrastructure at Storrs Harbor, however, meant that ship construction lagged about ten days behind that at Sackets Harbor.
When Adam Brown and Henry Eckford arrived at Storrs Harbor they found the land was owned by Henry and Abigail Champion and Lemuel and Betsey Storrs. In particular, Champion and Storrs owned three lots or subdivisions, numbers 12, 14 and 15, of what was called “Great Lot No. 52” in the town of Hounsfield NY. These three lots totaled 365.75 acres of land, but only lot number 15, of some 99.5 acres, would be needed to support the facilities necessary to build the Chippewa.151
Whether Brown and Eckford attempted to lease or rent the land from Champion and Storrs is unknown. If they did try they were unsuccessful. Before they could begin shipbuilding they had to purchase the land. Apparently Champion and Storrs did not wish to sell only lot 15, or Brown and Eckford hoped that the adjacent lots, 12 and 14, would increase in value with the presence of a shipyard in lot 15. Whichever the case, Brown and Eckford purchased all three lots from Champion and Storrs for $3,574. Although the deed of purchase is dated 15 January 1815, it was not registered at the county clerk’s office until mid-March.152 The reason for this delay is unknown, but if the purchase price was agreed upon in January, the subsequent news that the war was over would have caused the value of lots 12 and 14, and probably even lot 15, to diminish significantly.
149 The timber was to be hewed and squared and each blockhouse was to have a shingle roof. 150 Alden and Hoisington each built one blockhouse at Storrs Harbor and each charged the navy $500.00 for construction plus an additional $25.00 for 6.25 days work “drawing timber.” Shoddy construction cost Alden a $25.00 penalty and Hoisington $75.00. Isaac Chauncey’s accounts, vouchers #3 & #4 under “contingent expenses” dated 1 and 5 March 1815, Settled Accounts, Alphabetic Series, Chauncey. 151 Isaac Chauncey to Samuel L. Southard, 15 February 1827, SNLRC, 1827 vol 4a item 37 roll 118. 152 Deeds Liber G p.93, Jefferson County Clerk’s office, Watertown NY, recorded on 10 March 1815.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 49
1815 Survey of Subdivisions 12, 14 & 15 of Great Lot No. 52 containing Storrs Harbor153
This may explain why Brown and Eckford quickly sold “one undivided fourth part” of all three lots to Elisha Camp and his wife Sophia for exactly one-fourth of the total price they paid to Champion and Storrs ($893.50), with the deed of sale also dated 15 January and, again, not recorded until mid-March.154 Camp, a well-known resident of Sackets Harbor, owned a considerable amount of land in the vicinity and he may have been interested in helping to develop lots 12 and 14, adjacent to the naval yard in lot 15 or Brown and Eckford may have needed someone to help with the cost of all three lots.
153 From a Field Book of several Lots, Farms and subdivisions of Lots in the Town of Hounsfield in Jefferson County, Surveyed for Messrs Champion & Storrs 1815 by Robert McDowell Surveyor, located at the Jefferson County Historical Society, Watertown NY. 154 Deeds, Liber G page 200, Jefferson County Clerk’s office, Watertown NY, recorded 10 March 1815.
50 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Whatever the case, by mid-January 1815 these legal difficulties were overcome and construction of the Chippewa began, if it had not started already. In fact, it almost certainly started before mid-January, as Isaac Chauncey knew that time was short and he was pressuring Brown and Eckford to proceed as fast as possible. Of course, it would have been to Champion and Storrs’ advantage to allow their land at Storrs Harbor to be in active use as a shipbuilding site, as Brown and Eckford would then have had little choice but to ultimately purchase the land at a price acceptable to its owners.
While Eckford and the Brown brothers were making their preparations, agreements were made at Sackets Harbor for the timber required to build the new ships. One was concluded with Vincent LeRay de Chaumont, a prominent local resident and landowner, for 200,000 board feet of yellow pine boards. This was a huge increase over 1814s requirements, as de Chaumont wrote to financier David Parish:
Last year when they built the Superior & the two brigs I sent only 60M [60,000] so you may judge that they are going largely into the business. They keep secret what vessels they are going to build, but from the quantity & size of the timber required I presume it will be at least two 74s.155
Building the New Orleans involved the entire village of Sackets Harbor, as Britell Minor witnessed as a 13-year-old boy:
Every available spot about the village, and in many of the streets, were made use of to work material into shape for the man-of-war. It was a busy scene, and all was being driven under high pressure by the indomitable energy of Eckford, who was to be seen rushing about, with a keen eye to every detail.156
It did not take long for the newspapers to be aware of this shipbuilding program and they quickly printed whatever details came their way. One of the first reports originated from Plattsburgh on 24 December 1814 “that upwards of 600 ship carpenters and artificers had passed [Albany NY] for the lakes.”157 Five days later another report with more details appeared in the Herkimer American and was widely reprinted:
Government have determined to build during the winter an additional force on this lake. If we may estimate the addition from the number of workmen employed, we should suppose it would nearly equal that already there. Five hundred and twenty seats are engaged in the line of stages, and
155 PRC folder 1143. 156 Britell Minor, “Recollections of a Nonagenarian,” Transactions of the Jefferson County Historical Society III (Watertown NY, 1895) p.19; reprinted in Bulletin of the Jefferson County Historical Society, vol. 4 No. 16 (1963). 157 Alexandria VA, Alexandria Gazette, 12 January 1815.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 51
twenty men are to be conveyed each day. About one hundred and fifty have already passed through this village, and more than one hundred arrived at Sacket's Harbor.158
An exception to the usual style was the New York Columbian which remarked on the situation with uncommon restraint:
Building at Sacket's Harbor is undoubtedly going on, as the enemy must be well informed, if they have no other means of knowledge than our gossiping newspapers. We will not mention the number of men employed there, nor the keels already laid. But our readers may rest satisfied that our government will have the command of Lake Ontario next summer, unless something very unexpected in either country should be effected at Kingston. The architects are Mr. Brown and Mr. Eckford of this city.159
Copies of many American newspapers routinely arrived in Canada within a week or two. If British Commodore Sir James Lucas Yeo wanted to know what was going on at Sackets Harbor, he need only read the newspaper:
There are near six hundred ship carpenters at this post, busily engaged in getting timber ready to build two seventy-fours and a frigate of the first class.160
However, this information was not immediately accepted by the British. They wondering “whether the whole or any part of this is to be credited.” Nevertheless, it was essentially true.
When they arrived at Sackets and Storrs Harbors, the workmen encountered conditions both different and more severe than those they were accustomed to at home. By the standards of a later century some conditions were even hazardous. One blacksmith, John Midwinter, was hired by Eckford at New York City to work at Sackets Harbor for $1.75 per day plus room and board. As Midwinter recounted in his 1836 petition to Congress for a pension, he was
Accustomed to work with stone coal, a close fire, but at Sackett’s Harbor had to work with charcoal, which makes an open fire: this produced intense smarting and pain; his eyes became diseased.161
158 Reprinted in the New York City Mercantile Advertiser on 5 January 1815 and in Richmond VA, Carlisle PA, Lexington KY and elsewhere shortly thereafter. 159 Reprinted in the Washington DC National Intelligencer, 17 January 1815. 160 New York NY, Mercantile Advertiser, 23 January 1815. 161 H.Rep 39, 24th Congress, 2nd Session, 30 December 1836. By the time of his petition, Midwinter was blind. The House Committee on Invalid Pensions reported a bill (H.R. 786) to award Midwinter a pension of $8.00/month, but the bill failed to pass.
52 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
For some workmen just getting to Sackets Harbor could be hazardous and even fatal. On 13 January a group of ship carpenters were in a stagecoach on their way from New York City to Albany when a tragic accident occurred.
The stage starting from the tavern, the leading lines slipped from the driver’s hand, and he jumped from the seat to recover them. The horses running so fast that he could not overtake and secure them. Mess. Morrison and Mead attempted to get out and seize the reins; when the wheel run over Mr. Mead and bruised him so that he died in a few hours after, and Mr. Morrison being entangled by his coat, or by some other means drawn under the wheel, was crushed in the head and killed on the spot. … Another stage loaded with the same kind of passengers coming up directly after the accident, the horses started on seeing Mr. Mead struggling in the road, ran off and overset the carriage, but happily without any injury to the persons in it.162
Once at Sackets Harbor some workmen were so dissatisfied with the working and living conditions that they wanted to return home. On 28 January Henry Eckford billed the navy $84.00 for the cost of sending a blacksmith and three joiners from Sackets Harbor back to New York City.163
At the end of January 1815, Chauncey asked Navy Secretary Crowninshield to name the three ships. Crowninshield chose New Orleans, Chippewa and Plattsburgh. The names presumably commemorated the American victories at the battles of New Orleans, Chippewa (on the Niagara peninsula) and Lake Champlain. A penciled note by Crowninshield on the bottom of Chauncey’s letter spelled the name Chippawa, with an “a” not an “e.” The letter from Crowninshield to Chauncey used Chippewa. It is not known if this was an intentional change or whether it was an error made by a clerk.164 Either way, the warship’s name became Chippewa.
By the end of January 1815 construction of the New Orleans and Chippewa was proceeding rapidly. How long that would continue, however, was in serious doubt as Chauncey complained to New York Navy Agent, John Bullus:
I request your particular attention to the procuring funds for Messrs Eckford & Brown — Treasury Notes cannot be passed off here in any quantity and if these gentlemen are not kept in funds the
162 New York NY, Mercantile Advertiser, 19 January 1815. 163 Voucher from Henry Eckford dated 28 January 1815, Settled Accounts, Alphabetic Series, Chauncey. 164 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #12, 29 January 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 89 roll 42; Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Isaac Chauncey, 14 February 1815, SNLSO, vol 12 p.33 roll 12.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 53
whole business must stop and the campaign on the lake next summer be defeated. I trust that you will exert more than your usual zeal on this occasion.165
Treasury Notes themselves were so disliked at Sackets Harbor that Chauncey found it impossible “to purchase a single piece of timber with them here.”166 A week later, Eckford informed Chauncey that he had sent a man to visit Navy Agent Bullus in New York City and obtain the first payment due on his and the Brown brothers’ shipbuilding contract, but that payment was refused for reasons apparently unspecified. Chauncey was irate, and immediately wrote Bullus demanding that he not allow any “ideal difficulties or unimportant defects in form defeat the objects of the government on this lake.”167 A few days later Chauncey wrote Secretary Crowninshield that Eckford and the Brown brothers had just informed him that “their operations here must cease before the end of this month unless they are furnished with funds.”168 The problem, of course, was not restricted to Lake Ontario. By 1815 the needed funds were simply unavailable.
Chauncey also realized that his manpower problems were growing more serious as recruiting at New York and Philadelphia was not yielding the desired results. At the end of January he dispatched Master Commandant Charles G. Ridgely to Washington to describe the problem to Navy Secretary Benjamin W. Crowninshield in person and to make clear to him “the necessity of great exertion in procuring and sending officers and men to this lake in due season to man the fleet next spring.” Chauncey hoped that Crowninshield would agree to transfer the entire crews, officers and men, from the frigate Constitution, ship sloops Ontario and Erie or from the gunboat flotillas on the Atlantic coast to Sackets Harbor.169 Chauncey also ordered Ridgely to open a recruiting office at Baltimore to try and recruit 400 sailors from that city and he directed his officers at Sackets Harbor to open rendezvous to recruit men specifically for the Superior, General Pike and Jones whose crews had been greatly reduced by sailors whose terms of service had expired.170 A week later he ordered a separate rendezvous to be opened at New York City to recruit men specifically for Jacob Jones’ frigate Mohawk.171 As the war ended before these efforts had time to succeed, it is not clear how successful they would have been but it is almost certain
165 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 28 January 1815, CLB 6. 166 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #17, 11 February 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 177 roll 42 and CLB 6. 167 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 6 February 1815, CLB 6. 168 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #17, 11 February 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 117 roll 42. 169 Isaac Chauncey to Charles G. Ridgely, 31 January 1815, CLB 6. 170 Isaac Chauncey to John H. Bell, Charles W. Skinner and Samuel W. Adams, all 1 February 1815, CLB 6. 171 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 6 February 1815, CLB 6.
54 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 that Chauncey would not have obtained the sailors he needed for the 1815 campaign by recruiting alone.
Weather was also a factor. January was extremely cold, which froze the roads and made transportation easier but it hindered ship construction. As Chauncey reported on the first of February, “the weather has been so extremely cold for the last week that men could not work in the open air.”172 Nevertheless, he was satisfied so far with the progress of constructing the New Orleans and Chippewa and he expected them to be launched the first week of April.173 He also expected all the “principal articles” needed from New York to arrive by mid-March and the new rope walk to be ready “in a few days.”174 Chauncey was, however, worried about having enough oakum available to caulk the New Orleans and Chippewa, a task due to start in mid-February and which would use an “immense quantity” every day. He ordered Bullus to hurry some along from New York City.175
By mid-February, when word of the peace arrived at Sackets Harbor, the New Orleans at Sackets Harbor was
Completely planked up to the upper deck, filled in between the ports, squared off and rabbits of posts cut, lower gun deck beams and on top beams in and bolted at the ends, Masts capstan half done, Iron work for them also half done, dead eyes completed pumps partly boared, iron work for dead eyes & chain bolts ready — Bottom half caulked and payed from keel to water. The remaining beams clamps waterways and frames of decks ready to go on board — Deck partly built and paunching ways ready — Joiners work, viz bulk heads, steering wheel binnacle &c ready.176
The Chippewa at Storrs Harbor was not as far along. She was
All in frame has the greater part of bottom planked and her wales on [obscured] her lower ports formed the greater part of her caulking, and all her deck beams dressed out and all the timber for the deck frame ready — The masts spars and iron work under considerable forwardness and one third of her bottom caulked. 177
172 The British in Kingston had a different opinion of the weather, as Commodore Sir James Lucas Yeo reported to the Admiralty on 20 January 1815: “I very much doubt the possibility of there [sic] being able to get all the guns and stores from New York to Sackets this winter. The season is very open and mild and their roads even worse than ours.” NAUK, ADM 1/2738. 173 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 12 February 1815, CLB 6. 174 Isaac Chauncey to Crowninshield #15, 1 February 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 98 roll 42. 175 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 10 February 1815, CLB 6. 176 Jacob Jones and William M. Crane to Isaac Chauncey, 3 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 34 roll 43. 177 Jacob Jones and William M. Crane to Isaac Chauncey, 3 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 34 roll 43.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 55
Nevertheless, considering the harsh winter weather, progress on both vessels was outstanding. Chauncey was obviously pleased to report the status of the ships to New York Governor Daniel D. Tompkins just before he received official word that the war was over:
We are progressing rapidly with our ships — Mr Eckford will commence caulking the day after tomorrow and we certainly shall be ready to launch by the last of March unless the news of peace proves true and stops us where we are.178
2 At Sackets Harbor, the New Orleans was more than /3 of the way to being ready for launch when work finally stopped in early March 1815.179 Assuming work started at the end of December 1814, that amounted to about 70 workdays. The New Orleans and Chippewa were over 10% larger than the ships of the line built on the Atlantic and required that much more work. The Chippewa, lagging over a week behind the New Orleans, was only about half complete after some 60 days of work. Assuming seven day work weeks instead of six, and ignoring the decrease in work efficiency caused by the weather, the primitive working conditions and the limited winter daylight, applying the averages obtained from the Atlantic ships of the line yields a required workforce of from 520 to 650 men per vessel, or a total workforce of at least 1,000 men and perhaps as many as 1,300.180 This is almost twice as many men as the usual figure of six to eight hundred commonly cited at the time.181
Due to the haste in which the whole plan was implemented, and the relatively short duration of actual construction, detailed records on the exact number of workmen employed, and the time (in man-days) expended, apparently do not exist. Such records do exist, however, for several of the other ships of the line built and launched between 1816 and 1820. These, the North Carolina, Ohio, Columbus and Delaware, each required an average of 80,137 man-days of work by 140 workmen to complete. This effort required an average of 571 days of work, which time, assuming six workdays per week, correlates quite well with the times between laying down and launch of
178 Isaac Chauncey to Daniel D. Tompkins, 16 February 1815, CLB 6. 179 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #34, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 7 roll 43. 180 Henry Eagle, who, with Eckford, built the Oneida at Oswego in 1808-1809 and worked for Henry Eckford at Sackets Harbor during the war, recalled (in the 1850’s) that the New Orleans had 553 men working on her. Benson J. Lossing, Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812 (NY, 1869; repr. Glendale NY: Benchmark Publishing, 1970) p.797. Noah Brown who, with his brother Adam, was responsible for building the Chippewa, stated they “proceeded on to the Harbor with about 1,200 men,” “The Remarkable Statement of Noah Brown” owned (in 1914) by Brown’s great- granddaughter, Journal of American History VIII (1) (1914) p.107. 181 The Washington DC, National Intelligencer, 11 February 1815, the Boston MA, Boston Gazette, March 6, 1815 and Niles' Weekly Register v8 #3, 18 March 1815, p.37 all reported 600 ship carpenters employed at Sackets Harbor. If that number did not include the blacksmiths, caulkers and other types of workmen employed, a total of perhaps as many as 800 men could be inferred. This estimate, however, does not include the workmen who were preparing the timbers for the frigate Plattsburgh. That effort could easily add another 100 men or more to the total. It is also not clear whether the newspaper accounts included the men at Storrs Harbor in their totals.
56 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 each of those vessels.182 From a referee’s report made after the war to determine the total amount owed
It appears that it would have taken 400 hands 23 days from the time the work was stopped to have completed the first ship, 31 days the second ship, and 40 days the frigate. That the said Eckford and A & N Brown had in their employ about 800 hands.183
At war’s end, the British at Kingston were aware of the progress of the New Orleans but not that of the Chippewa. One of the first reports sent to the Admiralty in London by Commodore Edward William Campbell Rich Owen, who replaced Yeo as Commander-in-Chief on the lakes in March 1815, stated that there were at Sackets Harbor:
Two ships of 110 guns each on the stocks, planked up to the middle deck: gun deck beams not in, and timber in the yard for a third ship of the same class184
The third ship mentioned was, of course, the frigate Plattsburgh and not another ship of the line.
182 ASPNA Vol 1 No. 217 pp.836-840, 3 January 1823. 183 Referees report enclosed in Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 18 August 1815, CLB 7 p.115. 184 Comment at the end of Statement of the American Force at Sacketts Harbour by Captain Spilsbury R.N. who visited the Ships contained in Edward W. C. R. Owen to John Wilson Croker #8, 2 April 1815, NAUK, ADM 1/2262, LAC film B-2634.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 57
DISTRESSING DEVELOPMENTS
y early 1815, the navy at Sackets Harbor learned that the British had launched their new B large frigate, the 56 gun Psyche, at Kingston.185 That had been expected. What was not expected (except by William Jones back in October) was the near simultaneous news that the British had laid down another first rate ship of the line, to be ready for service in the spring.186 If both sides met their planned building schedules, the fleets would, once again, be almost equal in strength. The reduced winter shipbuilding schedule, which Chauncey recommended and Jones approved, had just developed some extremely unpleasant consequences. The Navy Department at Washington was aware of this but no action was taken, probably because the department was still under the custodial care of Chief Clerk Homans. Benjamin W. Crowninshield had accepted the position as navy secretary, but he would not take up his post until mid-January 1815.
Actually the news was not so bad. In August and September 1814, the British and American naval forces were roughly equal in strength, and yet Commodore Sir James Lucas Yeo remained safely in port at Kingston, venturing forth only in October when he had a clear superiority over Chauncey. Even when Chauncey left the Oneida at Sackets and dispatched his other three gun brigs on separate service to the west, Yeo remained in port. Fleet equality or near-equality appeared to mean that the United States would have command of the lake in 1815. Even that hope, however, was not to last.
In early February 1815, Chauncey received word that the British were building not one new first rate at Kingston but two: the Wolfe and Canada.187 Both ships would mount more guns than the St. Lawrence. William Jones’ fears were realized and the entire American plan to achieve naval superiority on Lake Ontario in 1815 fell apart. In the space of six weeks a clear American superiority had become equality and finally a definite inferiority. The building efforts underway at Sackets and Storrs Harbors, undertaken at tremendous effort and expense, would now result in a naval situation no better for the United States than that of the previous October.
185 James Lucas Yeo to John Wilson Croker #46, 31 December 1814, NAUK, ADM 1/2738, LAC film B-2942. New York, The Columbian, 14 January 1815. 186 This was HMS Wolfe, ordered by Commissioner Sir Robert Hall on 29 October 1814 and laid down at Kingston UC on 26 December 1814, NAUK ADM 106/1997, LAC film B-1001. This vessel was originally referred to in British reports only as “No. 1.” The Admiralty draught for this and her sister vessel, prepared in May 1815, has “Named Wolfe & Canada” written on it, but in a different hand from the rest of the script. 187 When the British became aware that Chauncey was building two first-rate ships of the line, Yeo ordered another: HMS Canada, a sister ship to HMS Wolfe and originally referred to only as “No. 2.” Thomas Strickland, Edward Laws and Michael Spratt to Navy Board, 6 January 1815, NAUK ADM 106/1997, LAC film B-1001. James Lucas Yeo to John Wilson Croker #6, 20 January 1815, NAUK, ADM 1/2738, LAC film B-2942.
58 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Under these circumstances, the likely composition of the British and American squadrons on Lake Ontario as of summer 1815 is shown in Table 13.
Table 13 – The Squadrons on Lake Ontario in Summer 1815 188 United States Great Britain Name Guns Name Guns New Orleans 106 Wolfe 108 Chippewa 106 Canada 108 Superior 56 St. Lawrence 102 Plattsburgh 56 Prince Regent 56 Mohawk 42 Psyche 56 General Pike 28 Princess Charlotte 42 Madison 24 Montreal 21 Jefferson (brig) 20 Niagara 21 Jones (brig) 20 Charwell (brig) 14 Sylph (brig) 18 Star (brig) 14 Oneida (brig) 18 Netley (schooner) 9 Lady of the Lake (schooner) 1 Total Guns 495 Total Guns 551
Even allowing for some variance in the number of guns carried on board individual vessels, the British would have a clear superiority, especially in the all-important ships of the line.
Table 14 shows the known differences between the specifications of the New Orleans and Chippewa and the British Wolfe and Canada. The New Orleans class, though carrying two fewer guns than the British Wolfe class, was better able to support her armament, being much larger vessels.
Table 14 – New Orleans Class vs. British Wolfe Class New Orleans Class Wolfe Class189 85 47 Tonnage (U.S. BOM) 2,805 /95 2,132 /95 Length of the keel 183 feet 6 inches 172 feet Length of the keel for tonnage 170 feet 157 feet 10 inches Length of the lower gun deck 200 feet 192 feet 6 inches Extreme beam 56 feet 50 feet 8 inches Depth of hold from lower gun deck 17 feet 9 inches 18 feet 4 inches Gun ports on lower deck 34 34 Gun ports on main deck 36 34 Gun ports on spar deck 36 34 + 6 roundhouse Total gun ports190 106 108 Tons per gun 26.5 19.9
188 For the British this data is based on Edward W. C. R. Owen to John Wilson Croker, 4 April 1815, NAUK, ADM 1/2263 p.111 in LAC film B-2635. The number of guns shown for the ships of the line is 10 to 12 more than their draughts show gun ports, but even after reducing their guns to 102, 108 and 108, the British had a clear superiority. 189 See Thomas Strickland to Navy Board, 31 December 1814, NAUK ADM 106/1997, LAC film B-1001. 190 The lower and main deck gun port values are confirmed by photographs taken of the hull after its enclosing ship house collapsed in 1880, see page 79.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 59
BRITISH INTELLIGENCE
he British did not have to wait to read American newspapers to discover that the Sackets T Harbor shipyard was once again busy. The British maintained an extensive and efficient espionage network in Northern New York. They received reports from Sackets Harbor on a frequent, sometimes weekly, basis. On 24 December 1814, an intelligence report sent from Prescott to Major General Frederick Robinson at Kingston claimed
That the keel of a brig is laid down, that a ship of 122 guns is contracted for, and about to be erected, as also two other large ships, that ship carpenters are arriving daily at Sackets.191
A Flag of Truce arrived at Ogdensburg from Prescott across the St. Lawrence River apparently for the sole purpose of obtaining intelligence. A disgruntled beef contractor, who had left Sackets Harbor two days earlier, willingly provided the British with this and other information, while also complaining that he had not been paid for the beef he delivered.
The British shipbuilding effort in early 1815 was due to the reports they received of the ships of the line building at Sackets Harbor. One spy’s report from Albany NY, only four days old, stated that
About one week ago nine hundred artificers, ship carpenters, blacksmiths, block makers, &c &c passed thro Albany on their way to Sacketts Harbour for the purpose of facilitating the building one 100 gun ship & two seventy fours.192
A week later, a British agent code-named “Jones,” reached Cornwall in Upper Canada with a report from Sackets Harbor stating:
Two 74-gun ships were being built. One, at Sackets Harbor, by Henry Eckford, and the other at Storrs Harbor, by “Mr Brown.” Although the New Orleans and Chippewa were to mount 106 guns, they were referred to in official correspondence as “74’s.”
Two Frigates are also to be built but no keel of any description has actually been yet laid down.
About 600 ship Carpenters have lately arrived from New York, the last of them passed Albany in three stages on the 10th.
191 Extract of a letter from Colonel Grant to Frederick P. Robinson, 24 December 1814, LAC, RG 8, C.686, p.229. 192 John Steel to Francis de Rottenburg, 10 January 1815, LAC, RG 8, C.687, p.40. Steel was the former commander of the Provincial Marine who retired in the spring of 1812 and was replaced by Hugh Earl. It is likely that Steel’s report reached General de Rottenburg shortly after these men reached Sackets Harbor. A good example of the timeliness of British intelligence reports during the war.
60 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
The total workforce at Sackets Harbor may be 700 ship carpenters & 400 choppers.
Except for including two frigates instead of one, this intelligence was remarkably accurate.193
At the beginning of February the British had another, even more detailed and accurate, report from “Jones”:
They have now two distinct ship yards — the old one at the point where they have laid down one keel, & have 400 carpenters with 200 choppers & teamsters & the new yard at Storrs harbour, about two miles and a half higher up the bay, where they have 300 carpenters &
200 choppers & teamsters — at this yard they have no guard nor fortification of any kind.
By pacing the length of these keels he thinks they are each 182 feet long each — Several of
the ribs are up, to make room for the workmen in the yard — the shipwrights say that they do not know whether they are intended for two or three deckers.
They are having cut more keels in the woods — it is supposed for a frigate at each dock yard
— but no one appears to know exactly except the Master Builders, & it is said that the Commodore has laid the strictest injunctions of secrecy upon them, as he is reported to have
said that the British have hitherto got information of all his plans — Ackford builds at the Point & Brown at Storr’s harbour.
The general conjecture is that they are to be 3 deckers — to register 90 but to carry from 100
to 110 guns — It is said that the guns are still at New York, but that the Commodore will
immediately on his return enter into contracts for bringing them on in sleighs — Report says
that the Government have offered one thousand dollars per gun — When our friend was at Albany (9th Inst) he heard Colonel Jenkins, the Dy Qr Mr General, say that 64 of the guns
were then in store there — There were no Anchors nor any other stores then there — Reports some little time before he came away, said that the keels which are now preparing in the 194 wood were intended for steam frigates — but it is now thought otherwise.
“Jones” had free access to the dockyard at Sackets Harbor, the arsenal at Albany and, when in Utica NY, dined twice with Generals Wilkinson, Dearborn, Izard and Porter. With that level of access, it is certain this spy was a trusted and highly respected American citizen. It is notable that the British were aware of the discussions between Secretary Jones and Chauncey regarding the possibility of building steam frigates on the lakes, including the final decision not to build them.
193 Report communicated by Major Charles McGregor at Cornwall, 17 January 1815, LAC, RG 8, C.687, pp.42-44. 194 George MacDonnell to Sidney Beckwith, 4 February 1815, LAC, RG 8, C.687, pp.96-99.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 61
One lucky British spy was David Jacobs. He was a Canadian, allegedly a lieutenant in the militia, apprehended by Commodore Chauncey in February 1815 under suspicious circumstances, as Chauncey reported to Secretary of the Navy, Benjamin Crowninshield:
He endeavoured to seduce two of our seamen to desert to the enemy, the men informed upon
him — I found in his pocket book the dimensions of the principal timbers of the ships now building and he can give no satisfactory account of the object of his visit to this country.195
Chauncey asked Crowninshield to authorize a court martial but the secretary declined to do so, annotating Chauncey’s letter with the words “saved by the peace.”
After news of peace reached the British, they continued to be concerned with the status of the New Orleans and Chippewa, particularly relative to the Wolfe and Canada under construction at Kingston. This was the topic of a query from Commodore Yeo to Governor in Chief Sir George Prevost:
I have reason to believe that the American ships building at Sacketts Harbour are in a much more forward state than ours. I therefore request Your Excellency’s opinion how far it may be necessary to keep pace with the Americans.196
Despite the desire to reduce expenditures, construction of the two British ships continued.
195 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #27, 20 February 1815, Captains Letters, 1815 vol 1 item 149 roll 42. 196 James Lucas Yeo to George Prevost, 26 February 1815, LAC, RG 8, C.687, pp.142-144.
62 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
FEBRUARY-APRIL 1815 – “SUSPEND ALL OPERATIONS”
s Chauncey was writing his report to Crowninshield on the British shipbuilding efforts, A news arrived at Washington that the war was over.197 Were it not for that timely event, Crowninshield would have faced the same choice as William Jones back in September: build more warships or relinquish naval superiority on Lake Ontario for the remainder of the war. If the former, where could more ships of the line be built? If that was solved somehow, where was the money coming from to build them and the crews to man them? If more warships were not built, then the money already spent building the two huge ships of the line and the additional frigate would be wasted, and the Federalist press would have had words to say about that situation. Fortunately for Crowninshield, President Madison and the United States in general, this choice never had to be made.
With peace at hand, Secretary Crowninshield wrote to Chauncey instructing him to “suspend all the operations of building and equipping the ships” and to immediately discharge all the civilian workmen.198 As these warships might never be needed, the treasury could not afford the expense of completing them. Crowninshield also ordered Samuel T. Anderson to immediately suspend transporting ordnance stores to Sackets Harbor.199 This effort proved extremely expensive, with some $287,140 in Treasury Notes issued for this purpose since November 1814.200 When Anderson’s accounts were settled at the Treasury Department some years after the war, his personal expenses in “the transportation of ordnance and naval stores from the City of Washington to Sacketts Harbour in the winter of 1814” amounted to $11,212.83 including a commission of three percent on a total expenditure for the transport of ordnance and stores of $257,094.40.201
For many workmen at Sackets Harbor, the news of peace interrupted their workday. One woodcutter, Silas Lyman, was at work on a big oak tree about a mile south of the Harbor, when the word came, “no more ship timber.”202
197 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #21, 14 February 1815, NAUS, RG 45, SNLRC, 1815 vol 1 item 126, M125 roll 42. 198 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Isaac Chauncey, 14 February 1815, SNLSO, vol 12 p.34 roll 12. 199 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Samuel T. Anderson, 15 February 1815, SNLSC, vol 2 p.288 roll 176. 200 Letters from Jones, Homans and Crowninshield to Anderson dated 7 and 24 November and 15, 24 and 29 December 1814, 14 January and 11 February 1815, SNLSC, roll 176. 201 Constant Freeman to Smith Thompson, 5 January 1822, RAO, p.102. 202 Adams NY, Jefferson County Journal, 9 February 1880.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 63
When Chauncey received Crowninshield’s order he had a problem. The civilian workmen were hired with the assurance that their transportation expenses to and from Sackets Harbor would be paid, and between those times they would be paid regularly whether they worked or not. The problem was transport; it was the middle of winter and only some 30 to 40 men a day could be carried south to Utica.203 If the men were ordered to cease work at once, most would be paid to do nothing for some time, until their turn came to leave. For some, this turn wouldn’t arrive until March. Chauncey decided that the workmen remaining at Sackets and Storrs Harbors should continue building the ships until their transportation could be arranged. Thus construction of the New Orleans and Chippewa proceeded at a gradually diminishing pace for another few weeks. By the middle of March the shipyards were quiet and Dawn at Sackets Harbor on a late winter day in March 1815. The New Orleans rests incomplete on the stocks on Navy Point. The the two unfinished ships of the line masts of the ships of Chauncey’s squadron are in the left stood silently on their slipways. The background and Fort Tompkins is on the right. Painting by Peter Rindlisbacher, used by permission. frigate Plattsburgh never progressed beyond a pile of pre-cut timber, was never actually laid down, and after 1816 no further mention of her appears in the records of the time.204 Of the vessels in service, most were quickly disarmed and placed in ordinary. The brig Oneida, oldest vessel in the squadron, was used for a few voyages as a troop transport, but by August 1815 only the brig Jones and the dispatch schooner Lady of the Lake remained in service.205 One observer stationed at Sackets Harbor at the end of the war was Artillery Captain Rufus McIntire. In one of his letters to his friend John Holmes, McIntire described the shipbuilding situation at Sackets Harbor in early March 1815:
The ships building here will not be finished. The carpenters are mostly gone home. The ships are planked up to the ports of the upper deck & calked nearly to the lower ports. They would have been ready to launch before April. One of them has more keel than any ship ever launched! The frame of
203 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #30, 25 February 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 2 item 104 roll 69. 204 The last reference to Plattsburgh in official papers appears to be in the list of the Naval Force on the First of January 1816, Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Charles Tait, 2 January 1816, ASPNA Vol 1 No. 133 p.379, 14th Congress, 1st Session. The ship was listed as “Frame and other timbers completely prepared.” 205 Melancthon T. Woolsey to John Rodgers, 14 July 1815, NCLR, SHL.
64 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
another is completely ready & would have been set on the same ways & launched in thirty days after the other. The ordnance, stores & rigging would all have been here by the 1st of April.206
When Eckford and the Brown brothers were ordered to suspend construction of the ships at Sackets and Storrs Harbors they were owed a considerable sum of money for their efforts to that date.207 The total contract for the three ships, based on $80 per ton, amounted to $588,680. Of that amount, as of 20 February 1815 they had received only $100,000, the payment due in December 1814, paid late and in Treasury Notes. On 1 March 1815 the Brown brothers wrote to Secretary Crowninshield requesting an immediate payment of $200,000 for work done during January and February 1815 as specified in their contract.208 A week later, Crowninshield wrote the Browns informing them that the money owed them would be paid to them by the navy agent, Dr. John Bullus, at New York City.209
Since the ships were unfinished, Chauncey needed to know how far along they were before the accounts with Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown could be settled. Accordingly, Chauncey ordered Captain Jacob Jones and Master Commandant William Crane to conduct a survey and report the status of these ships.210 Jones and Crane added Watertown NY attorney Amos Benedict to their survey team and on 3 March 1815 they presented their report.211 On 20 March Bullus reported to Secretary Crowninshield that Eckford and the Browns had accepted the deductions made by the survey team and they wanted to be paid the balance which, after reductions for the work not finished, amounted to $194,680.212
To Eckford and the Browns’ annoyance, the balance remained unpaid. At the beginning of June they wrote to Isaac Chauncey asking that he “interpose your influence in favor of an immediate settlement” of their account.213 Three weeks later they received a letter from Secretary Crowninshield agreeing to pay them all but $30,000 of the outstanding balance,
206 Rufus McIntire to John Holmes, 4 March 1815, Rufus McIntire Letters 1813-1815, SC4510, New York State Library, Albany, New York; also in Fredriksen, John C. editor, “The War of 1812 in Northern New York: The Observations of Captain Rufus McIntire” New York History 68 (July 1987) pp.296-324. 207 Isaac Chauncey to Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown, 23 February 1815, CLB 6. 208 Adam and Noah Brown to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 1 March 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 2 item 120 roll 69. 209 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Adam & Noah Brown, 7 March 1815, SNLSM, vol 12 p.281 roll 4. 210 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield #30, 25 February 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 2 item 105 roll 69. 211 Jacob Jones & William Crane to Isaac Chauncey, 3 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 34 roll 43. 212 John Bullus to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 20 March 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 3 item 47 roll 70. 213 Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown to Isaac Chauncey, 8 June 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 5 item 115 roll 72.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 65
Which shall remain to be adjusted by arbitration, of which Commodore Chauncey shall be one in behalf of this department — this sum shall be withheld until the adjustment can be made by the arbitrators.214
In particular, Crowninshield believed the surveyor’s estimated value of the frigate Plattsburgh was too high. In this he was probably correct. The amount deducted by the survey for incompleteness was less than 30% whereas the keel of the frigate had not even been laid down when work stopped. Crowninshield also required that Eckford and the Browns agree
To finish all these ships, at any time within two years, if so required by the government of the United States, upon being placed in the same situation, precisely, as when the work was suspended. 215
That condition was readily accepted by Eckford and the Browns as they probably realized that the expense of restoring things at Sackets Harbor to the way they were in late February would cost the government more than it could afford. Considerably less attractive to them was having to wait an additional 90 days to receive payment and then receive only the unwanted Treasury Notes. However, they had to know that there was no alternative as by war’s end that amount of “current bank money” (bank bills) was unavailable.216 At this point the account for the construction of the New Orleans, Chippewa and Plattsburgh appeared as follows:
Transaction Owed Credit Balance Due New Orleans, 2,805 tons per contract $224,400 $224,400 Deduction per March 1815 survey $23,000 $201,400 Chippewa, 2,805 tons per contract $224,400 $425,800 Deduction per March 1815 survey $31,000 $394,800 46 Plattsburgh, 1,748 /95 tons per contract $139,880 $534,680 Deduction per March 1815 survey $40,000 $494,680 Payment 20 February 1815 in Treasury $100,000 $394,680 Notes which was due in December.1814 Payment for January and February 1815 $200,000 $194,680 Draft Payable in 60 days $164,600 $30,000
There remained the issue of the remaining $30,000 which Eckford and the Browns believed was still owed to them. Secretary Crowninshield offered to arbitrate the matter with Isaac Chauncey as the government’s arbitrator. This was accepted by Eckford and the Brown brothers
214 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown, 20 June 1815, SNLSM, vol 12 p.333 roll 4. 215 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown, 20 June 1815, SNLSM, vol 12 p.333 roll 4. 216 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Whitehead Fish, cashier of the Mechanics Bank in New York City, 30 June 1815, SNLSM, vol 12 p.337 roll 4; Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Isaac Chauncey, 1 July 1815, SNLSO, vol 12 p.161 roll 12.
66 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 and they chose Richard Riker as their arbitrator.217 Chauncey and Riker then chose Benjamin Bailey as the third member and they issued their unanimous report on 17 August 1815.218
Under the terms of this report, Eckford and the Brown Brothers received the remaining $30,000 claimed by them for their work on the two ships of the line and the frigate. The total amount they were paid for the work done was $494,680, just over 84% of the total contract amount.219
Despite this judgment, as of 2 November 1815 no part of the outstanding balance had been paid. On that date Eckford and the Brown brothers complained to the Navy Department. They received a reply from Chief Clerk Homans who informed the trio that the navy agent at New York was “expected at the seat of government in the course of a few days” and that he would obtain the entire $194,680 and would deliver the money to them shortly thereafter.220 That was done and payment for the three warships at Sackets and Storrs Harbors was complete.
That did not end the matter, however. As late as 1821 the Treasury Department considered that Eckford and the Browns still owed the government money for the advances made to them for building the New Orleans, Chippewa and Plattsburgh. The secretary of the navy never informed the treasury that the men had their bills approved by the Navy Department. The matter was finally resolved in December 1821 when Fourth Auditor of the Treasury Constant Freeman acknowledged that a total of $494,680
Has been passed to your credit on the books of this office, and your account closed; consequently your names are erased from the annual list of balances due to the United States.221
Isaac Chauncey formally resigned his post as commodore of the naval force on Lake Ontario on 1 July 1815.222 The affairs of the Sackets and Storrs Harbor stations were left in the hands of Master Commandant Melancthon Taylor Woolsey who had been serving on Lake Ontario since 1808 when he supervised the construction of the Oneida.
217 Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 12 July 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 6 item 37 roll 73; Benjamin Homans to Isaac Chauncey, 29 July 1815, SNLSO, vol 12 p.174 roll 12. 218 Arbitrators report dated 17 August 1815 enclosed in Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 18 August 1815, CLB 7, p.115. 219 From Schedule “A” in the referees report enclosed in Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 18 August 1815, CLB 7 p.115; Benjamin Homans to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 22 August 1815, 1824 vol 2 item 72 roll 98. 220 Benjamin Homans to Adam & Noah Brown, 7 November 1815, SNLSM, vol 12 p.370 roll 4; Benjamin Homans to John Bullus, 13 November 1815, SNLSC, p.415 roll 176; Whitehead Fish & John Fleming of the Mechanics Bank in New York City to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 15 November 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 7 item 62 roll 74; Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Whitehead Fish, 18 November 1815, SNLSM, vol 12 p.371 roll 4. 221 Constant Freeman to Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown, 29 December 1821, RAO, p.65. 222 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 1 July 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 4 item 50 roll 4.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 67
Overall, it appears that Henry Eckford and Adam and Noah Brown had little to complain about financially. Assuming 1,200 workmen for 75 days (12 weeks), both overestimates, at an average wage of $1.75 per day and $4.00 per week for board per workman plus $8.00 per man for transportation to and from Sackets Harbor, their expenses were certainly less than $250,000 as all the building materials were provided by the government.223
223 Wages and board amounts from Jacob Jones and William Crane to Isaac Chauncey, 3 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 34 roll 43. The $8.00 per man was for transporting seaman from Sackets Harbor to Albany in March 1815, Isaac Chauncey to William Bolton Finch, 19 March 1815, CLB 7, p.9.
68 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
WAS IT WORTH DOING?
he end of the war abruptly terminated the effort to regain command of Lake Ontario in T 1815, but, had the war continued into the summer of 1815, how productive would the shipbuilding effort at Sackets and Storrs Harbors have been? The moment Isaac Chauncey learned that the British at Kingston had laid down a third ship of the line, all hope of maintaining naval superiority on Lake Ontario during the entire 1815 campaigning season (May to November) evaporated. That did not mean, however, that such superiority could not be maintained early in that season and for long enough to provide enough support to the United States army’s efforts to bring about a major success. Had the New Orleans, Chippewa and Plattsburgh been ready for service at least four and ideally six or eight weeks in advance of the Wolfe and Canada, and depending on what plans the army had in mind, the shipbuilding effort might have been worth it. Could this have happened?
Although such “what if’s” are often too subjective to be worth considering, in this case there appears to be enough facts available to make the effort worth it. For William Jones’ plan to succeed to even the limited extent noted above, five questions would have needed positive answers. Assuming enough money could be found to complete the work and that the sailors needed to man the new ships would arrive at Sackets Harbor in time, the remaining three questions are:
1. Could the New Orleans, Chippewa and Plattsburgh have been launched and ready for fitting out early enough in the spring?
2. Would the vessels’ armament, sails, anchors, kentledge, and other naval stores have arrived at Sackets and Storrs Harbors in time?
3. Finally, assuming both of the above requirements were met, would the completion of the Wolfe and Canada at Kingston be delayed long enough to give the United States Navy’s expanded squadron on Lake Ontario time to accomplish anything?
The answer to this last question is the most uncertain. While the United States suspended ship construction at Sackets and Storrs Harbors in early March 1815, the British at Kingston kept on building.224 Work was going forward on both the Wolfe and Canada as late as that summer.225
224 On 21 March 1815, immediately after he replaced Yeo in command on the lakes, Commodore Edward W. C. R. Owen informed Lt. General Gordon Drummond that he had Sir George Prevost’s “full concurrence in the Intention of proceeding with whatever naval works had been begun before the ratification of the treaty, until they are compleat, or until orders shall arrive from England on the subject.” On 2 April 1815, Owen wrote to the Admiralty that “I have
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 69
The Royal Navy discovered first-hand the state of the New Orleans when the Royal Navy schooner Netley visited Sackets Harbor twice at the end of March, the second trip carrying Commodore Sir James Lucas Yeo on his way to England by way of New York City.226 To avoid a possible future disadvantage, construction of the Wolfe and Canada continued until those vessels were about as complete as the New Orleans. The British apparently believed that the Chippewa at Storrs Harbor was as far along as the New Orleans, which was not the case.
On 10 June 1815, Commodore Sir Edward Owen reported to acting Governor General Sir Gordon Drummond that he had
Given directions, that the new ships should be put in as forward a state as possible, with a view to seasoning; and be left in that state; the beams, plank and every thing which would be requisite to finish them being prepared, and kept as much in readiness as possible. One of these has been carried to that state and the other is in considerable progress towards it.227
From paintings done in the late summer of 1815 and again in the early 1820’s, the Wolfe and Canada were some weeks away from being ready for launch.228 Even allowing that this was due to a reduced pace of construction after war’s end, it still appears unlikely that the British could have had these ships ready for service before the end of June. In fact, that time might be optimistic if there were delays obtaining and transporting the over 200 cannon needed to arm the new ships of the line.229 As the quantity of additional naval stores needed at Kingston was about the same as the quantity needed at Sackets Harbor, the transport task was a large and very difficult one. Therefore, if the New Orleans, Chippewa and Plattsburgh were ready to sail by 15
desired…that both ships may still be put as forward as they can, with a proper view to their seasoning; and that the materials may be prepared and kept ready for finishing them, whenever it may be requisite to do so.” Owen to Gordon Drummond, LAC, RG 8, C.734 pp.60-62 film C-3244 and Owen to John Wilson Croker #8, NAUK, ADM 1/2262, LAC film B-2634. 225 Edward W. C. R. Owen to John Wilson Croker #29, 21 June 1815; NAUK, ADM 1/2262, LAC film B-2634. 226 The Netley returned from the first visit to Sackets Harbor on March 24, 1815 and sailed again on March 27 with Yeo on board. Captain’s Log of HMS Princess Charlotte at Kingston, NAUK, ADM 51/2700(5) and the Captain’s log of the British Gunboat Flotilla at Kingston, NAUK, ADM 51/4096. 227 Owen also reported to Drummond that “the American ships at Sacketts are to be completed, in consequence of the rise of water on the lake having softened the ground on which they have been built and endangered them.” Although he had his doubts about this being the reason, he informed Drummond that “it will be incumbent upon us, if they complete their ships, to do the same, and finish one at least of ours, for which I will take care to leave conditional instructions.” LAC, RG 8, C.735 pp.8-17 film C3244. 228 Paintings of the Point Frederick Naval Yard done by E. E. Vidal in 1815 at the Massey Library, Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario and by John A. Roebuck around 1821. 229 The whereabouts of these guns, or even if they had been ordered, was unknown at Kingston in mid-May 1815. The guns were not ordered to be sent to Canada until July. Also, as late as the end of March the gun carriages for the frigate Psyche were incomplete and construction of those for the Wolfe and Canada apparently not even started. Edward W. C. R. Owen to John Wilson Croker #20, 17 May 1815 and Admiralty comments written on the letter on 3 July, NAUK, ADM 1/2262, LAC film B-2634; Owen to Gordon Drummond, 21 March 1815, and Owen to George Prevost, 22 March 1815, LAC, RG 8, C.734 pp.58-59 & 60-62, film C-3244.
70 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
May 1815, the United States would probably have had the command of Lake Ontario for at least the next six weeks.
The answer to the first question depends on how far along the vessels at Sackets and Storrs Harbors were at war’s end and how much additional time would have been needed before they were ready to be launched. In mid-February, 1815, Chauncey expected to be able to launch the New Orleans by the end of March.230 Based on the March 1815 survey of the New Orleans and Chippewa,231 and the photographs of the New Orleans taken in the early 1880’s,232 the New Orleans was about 2/3 complete after 75 days of work, and the Chippewa not as far along after ten days less work. Therefore the New Orleans could have been ready for launch by early April and the Chippewa ready some ten days later. Allowing three or four weeks for fitting out after launch, it appears that both vessels stood an excellent chance of being ready to sail by 15 May 1815.
Construction of the Plattsburgh could not begin until the New Orleans was launched. Assuming the official report that the frigate’s timbers were “completely prepared”233 by mid- March was accurate, and that construction started by early April, this smaller vessel could probably have been assembled, launched and fitted out in six weeks. The similar and nearly identical frigate Superior was built in the spring of 1814 in 80 days with a smaller workforce. Once both ships of the line were launched this workforce was available to complete the frigate, again making a 15 May 1815 completion date possible.234
Actually, this date might be pessimistic. Just as it took several weeks to return the workmen at Sackets and Storrs Harbors south to Utica, it would have taken at least that length of time for them to arrive.235 Therefore, the work force at both Sackets and Storrs Harbors would have increased gradually from near the end of December 1814 until late January 1815. Of the 75 working days mentioned above for the New Orleans, fewer than 40 would have benefited from a full-strength workforce. That force could probably have completed the New Orleans in another
230 Isaac Chauncey to Daniel D. Tompkins, 16 February 1815, CLB 6. 231 Amos Benedict, Jacob Jones and William M. Crane to Isaac Chauncey, 3 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol. 2 item 34 roll 43. They estimated that the New Orleans could be ready for launching in 23 days and the Chippewa in 31 days. 232 Photographs located at the Jefferson County Historical Society, Watertown, NY. 233 Naval Force on the First of January, 1816, ASPNA Vol 1 No. 133 p.380, 14th Congress 1st Session. 234 The referees report claims completion of the frigate Plattsburgh was possible in 40 days but it is not clear whether this refers to calendar days or working days (omitting Sunday), attachment in Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 18 August 1815, CLB 7 p.115; The Superior’s build time was recorded in Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #56, 1 May 1814, SNLRC, 1814 vol 1 item 103 roll 48. 235 As late as mid-January 1815 the block makers and blacksmiths needed at Sackets and Storrs Harbors had not yet left New York City. Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 14 January 1815, CLB 6.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 71 month, making the vessel’s launch date as early as the middle of March, weather and ice permitting. If everything went well, this would have allowed for all three vessels to be ready for service around the first of May, assuring the United States control of Lake Ontario for the next two months.
However, having the new vessels launched in a timely fashion served no purpose if their armament and naval stores, the material Samuel T. Anderson was tasked with transporting to Sackets Harbor from a multitude of distant places, failed to arrive at Sackets and Storrs Harbors by the end of April. Since in mid-February the Navy Department ordered that the transport of these items be stopped, it is understandable if all the needed items had not arrived as they might have done so in subsequent weeks.236 The overall chance of success can therefore be determined if it is known how many of those supplies had arrived.
At the time the order to suspend transport to Sackets Harbor was issued, there were many naval stores on their way to Sackets Harbor. Those which had passed beyond Utica would almost certainly have continued on to Sackets Harbor as it was more expensive to return them to their point of origin and the precarious state of the United States treasury at the time would not permit that option. Stores which had only reached Albany or perhaps Schenectady, would be returned to New York City, as that was both the cheapest and the most useful action. Stores along the Mohawk River could go either way. It is known that nine 32-pound cannon arrived at Utica and were returned to New York City.237 In any case, it is reasonable to assume that naval stores continued to arrive at Sackets and Storrs Harbors for some time after the suspension order was issued, probably until at least mid-March.
Although there is a fairly detailed inventory of the various naval stores at Sackets Harbor taken in 1822,238 a partial list of items transported from Sackets Harbor to New York City in 1825,239 as well as a list of items that were sold at Sackets Harbor on 1 August 1825 when the station was broken up,240 in many cases it is difficult to determine how many of these stores were taken from the existing vessels and how many were there to outfit the new construction. Small arms, sails, and the like are just too generic for an accurate analysis. There are three components,
236 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Samuel T. Anderson, 16 February 1815, SNLSC, pp.289, 291 roll 176; also M441 roll 1 frame 464. 237 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Samuel T. Anderson, 13 March 1815, SNLSC, p.312 roll 176; also M441 roll 1 frame 476. 238 Naval Stores and Munitions fit for service, 4 March 1822, ASPNA Vol 1 No. 208 p. 792, 17th Congress, 1st Session. 239 William Bainbridge to Samuel L. Southard, 1 October 1825, SNLRM, 1825 vol. 6 item 71 roll 103. 240 Announcement of government sale at Sackets Harbor in the Albany NY, Albany Argus, 17 June 1825.
72 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 however, for which such an analysis is possible and for which accurate data is also available: the cannon, carronades and shot.
Table 15 – Ordnance at Sackets Harbor 1814-1825
On board squadron At Sackets Harbor Transported from Sackets Type of on Lake Ontario, and fit for service Harbor to New York City, Ordnance July, 1814 241 March, 1822 242 June to September, 1825 243 Long 32 30 182 68 Long 24 62 73 51 Long 18 15 24 25 Long 12 14 17 6 Long 9 2 2 0 Long 6 0 7 0 Total Cannon 123 305 150 Short 68 0 1 0 Short 42 60 111 244 111 Short 32 24 52 44 Short 24 16 18 14 Short 18 0 12 2 Total Carronades 100 194 171 Grand Total 223 499 321
Table 16 – Ordnance Required at Sackets Harbor, March 1815
On board Needed to arm Total armament squadron the needed by Type of Ordnance July, 1814 245 new vessels May, 1815 Long 32 30 170 200 Long 24 62 18 80 Long 18 15 0 15 Long 12 14 0 14 Long 9 2 0 2 Total Cannon 123 188 301 Short 42 60 82 142 Short 32 24 0 24 Short 24 16 0 16 Total Carronades 100 82 182 Grand Total 223 270 483
241 Force of the Squadron on Lake Ontario, 15 July 1814, AF roll 77 with the armament of the Lady of the Lake added from a similar but less detailed report dated 15 March 1814, AF roll 76. 242 Naval Stores and Munitions fit for service, 4 March 1822, ASPNA vol 1 #208 p.792, 17th Congress, 1st Session. 243 Table of Stores shipped by Ely and Denison from Sackets Harbor to New York between June 10 and September 15, 1825, included in a report from William Bainbridge to Samuel L. Southard, 1 October 1825, SNLRM, 1825 vol 6 item 71 roll 103. A printed version appears in ASPNA vol 2 #268. 244 ASPNA vol 1 shows this number as “11” which is very probably a typesetters error and should be “111”. 245 Force of the Squadron on Lake Ontario, 15 July 1814, AF roll 77 with the armament of the Lady of the Lake added from a similar but less detailed report dated 15 March 1814, AF roll 76.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 73
Table 15 shows the ordnance on board Chauncey’s squadron in the summer of 1814, the ordnance at Sackets Harbor during a detailed inventory taken in 1822, and an inventory of the portion of that ordnance shipped from Sackets Harbor to New York City during three months in 1825. Comparing the 1815 ordnance requirements with the numbers at Sackets Harbor in 1814 and 1822 shows quite clearly that the entire armament for the New Orleans and Chippewa and a portion of the armament for the Plattsburgh had actually arrived at Sackets Harbor by mid-March 1815 (see Table 16). Anderson did not limit his transport efforts exclusively to ordnance. It is likely that an equal proportion of the other items needed had also arrived by that time. As at least two weeks remained before the New Orleans would be ready to make use of them, and the Chippewa and Plattsburgh would not need them for several additional weeks, it appears that Samuel T. Anderson would have completed his Herculean task in time to give an affirmative answer to the second question.
Table 17 – Shot at Sackets Harbor 1815-1825
Weight of shot (pounds) Item 42 32 24 Totals Guns in 1815 squadron 246 142 224 80 Round Shot Fit for service in 1822 247 5,248 8,400 16,340 Rounds/gun in 1815 37 37 204 Double Shot Fit for service in 1822 0 432 123 Rounds/gun in 1815 0 2 1 Canister Shot Fit for service in 1822 340 760 1,213 Rounds/gun in 1815 2 3 15 Grape Shot Fit for service in 1822 2,015 4,227 1,661 Rounds/gun in 1815 14 19 20 Total Shot in 1822 7,603 13,819 19,337 40,759 Returned to NYC Jun-Sep 1825 248 2,670 6,639 18,005 27,314 Percentage Returned to New York 35% 48% 93% 67%
246Force of the Squadron on Lake Ontario, 15 July 1814, AF roll 77 with the armament of the Lady of the Lake added from a similar but less detailed report dated 15 March 1814, AF roll 76. 247 Naval Stores and Munitions fit for service, 4 March 1822, ASPNA Vol 1 No. 208 p.792, 17th Congress, 1st Session. 248 Table of Stores shipped by Ely and Denison from Sackets Harbor to New York between June 10 and September 15, 1825, included in a report from William Bainbridge to Samuel L. Southard, 1 October 1825, NAUS, RG 45, SNLRM 1825 vol 6 item 71 roll 103. A printed version appears in ASPNA vol 2 #268.
74 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
This conclusion is supported by examining the 32 and 42-pound round shot on hand and fit for service at Sackets Harbor in 1822 (see Table 17). There was enough recorded at that time to allocate 37 to each 32 and 42-pound cannon and carronade in the expanded 1815 squadron. This is less than the Navy Department “standard” of 60 round shot per carronade and 100 per long gun, but the quantity was probably ample for a single engagement and time remained for more to arrive as shot would not be needed until the squadron actually sailed. Also, shot was one of the few items not made of wood that could be procured nearby. Contracts for the delivery of shot had been signed with forges at Rome and Onondaga Hollow, each only about 80 miles distant from Sackets Harbor.
According to the 1822 “fit for service” inventory, the quantity of some smaller and lighter items at Sackets Harbor, such as sponges and gun locks, was not adequate to outfit the new vessels. However, these articles could have been transported more easily and quickly than cannon and shot and Anderson may have deliberately left them for last. In addition, some of these items may have become unfit for use in the years since the war and not appear on that inventory.
Therefore, surprisingly, it appears from the facts available that James Madison’s goal would have been met. William Jones’ plan could have succeeded and the United States had the advantage of at least a six week period of naval superiority on Lake Ontario in the spring of 1815. Of course, whether that superiority would have been put to good use is another question entirely, but the navy would have been ready.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 75
MAY 1815 – “THEY WILL PERISH IN TWO YEARS”
n early March 1815, Navy Secretary Crowninshield, recognized that it was “An object of I importance to save the hulls of the two large ships from total decay and loss” and he wrote to Adam and Noah Brown granting them (and probably Henry Eckford by inference), permission to complete, launch and then sink the two ships of the line but only if the cost to do so would not exceed $50,000 each. Left unstated in Crowninshield’s letter was the actual location of their sinking – would the two ships be sunk at or near their building sites, or would the two be sunk at one location either at Sackets or Storrs Harbor? Crowninshield left that decision to Commodore Chauncey.249
In late March 1815 Chauncey wrote Secretary Crowninshield that
The two ships of the line might have been completed and launched for a sum not exceeding thirty five thousand dollars each, provided the carpenters had Melancthon Woolsey been permitted to have proceeded with their work but as they have now broke off and returned to New York it would make the difference of transportation each way say about $60,000 which would exceed the sum prescribed by the Department, yet I should imagine that in the course of the summer Messrs Eckford & Browns might be able to finish the two ships of the line for a sum not exceeding $50,000 provided they were permitted to do the work at their leisure and launch before the winter.250
As it was likely that the Brown Brothers would require more than $100,000 to finish the two vessels, nothing was done. Crowninshield replied to Chauncey that he regretted
The unfinished state of the two ships of the line, and the difficulty and expense which will attend the completion of them. As things are situated they must, for the present, be covered and sheltered from the sun and the weather; and, in the course of the season, something may be decided upon inspecting them.251
In late May of 1815 that “season” arrived. Commodore Isaac Chauncey, Major General Jacob Brown, Navy Secretary Crowninshield and the Secretary of the Treasury and acting Secretary of War Alexander James Dallas recommended to President Madison that the naval and military establishments at Sackets Harbor be moved to Henderson Harbor.252 They also recommended that
249 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Adam and Noah Brown, 7 March 1815, SNLSM, vol 12 p.281 roll 4. 250 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, #48, 26 March 1815, SNLRC, 1815 vol 2 item 114 roll 43. 251 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Isaac Chauncey, 18 April 1815, SNLSO, vol 12 p.105 roll 12. 252 Alexander James Dallas to James Madison, 26 May 1815 in Dallas, Life and Writings, pp.425-426.
76 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 the New Orleans and Chippewa be completed, launched, moved to Henderson Harbor and sunk for preservation, believing that “if left on the stocks, they will perish in two years.” The estimate to complete them enough to allow them to be launched and moved was given as $50,000 each, probably a considerable under-estimate and doubtless designed to conform with the expenditure limit set by Crowninshield in March. Secretary Dallas went so far as to order Jacob Brown to begin negotiations to acquire a large tract of land at Henderson Harbor to “prevent the price being raised” while the decision making process proceeded.253 President Madison, however, declined to authorize the move and the army and navy remained at Sackets Harbor.
There were some advantages to moving to Henderson Harbor, but the expense involved in doing so (including purchase of the land to be used) was probably the deciding factor against it, given the still-precarious state of the United States treasury.
253 Alexander James Dallas to James Madison, 26 May 1815 in Dallas, Life and Writings, pp.425-426.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 77
1815-1817 – “SCANDALOUS WORKMANSHIP”
y the end of May 1815, the naval stations on the lakes were again receiving attention from B Washington. The Treaty of Ghent, though ending the war, settled nothing. The Indians, quiet at the moment, could resume predatory activities at any time, especially if the British continued their prewar practice of supplying them with arms and ammunition. Furthermore, there were boundary disputes on the Lakes. Although the treaty established a boundary commission to
Map of Sackets Harbor and Black River Bay showing the location of the New Orleans and Chippewa. NAUS RG 92 Posts & Reservations Map 9 Storrs Harbor 1829. resolve these, that commission might fail to resolve them amicably. Finally, word arrived that the “monster” had escaped from Elba. Napoleon was back on the throne of France and war was imminent. If this new war lasted any length of time, the Royal Navy would probably resume restricting American commerce and impressing American sailors. The treaty might only amount to a truce. The lake warships might be needed again at any time.
A major concern of the Navy Department was preserving the incomplete New Orleans and Chippewa. Built from unseasoned timber, they would deteriorate if left exposed to the elements. It was also possible they would deteriorate even if not so exposed. John Aldersley, a British foreman of shipwrights at Kingston, wanted to know how the Americans managed to build first rate ships of the line so quickly. In February 1816, he visited Sackets Harbor and was allowed to
78 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 closely inspect the New Orleans.254 Aldersley’s report was a scathing condemnation of the construction practices employed:
I was not in the least impressed at their building or rather making ships in so short a time when I came to examine into the workmanship. The first thing which caught my attention was the frames. I never could have believed if I had not seen it: the most abominable, neglectful, slovenly work ever performed, no regard for heads, heels or scarphs of timbers, nor even the posts. The Timbers are in many instances thrown in one upon the other, with out even the bark of the tree being taken off.
It evidently appears, that the ports are cut out after the ships are filled in, the same as the doors and windows are cut out after a log house is framed. In many instances I found that the timbers which 2 made the sides of the ports were cut some ¼ and others /3 through some of the heads and heels of futtocks in wake of the ports. Their first intention was to butt square upon each other the heads & heels of futtocks many of them are from 2 to 3 inches clear of each other – not a chock in the frame to be seen from keel to plank-sheer which is the greatest strength to the frame of a ship.
The next thing which I observed was the beams are all of one piece each. Orlop and lower gun deck in their places, but not fastened at all – found the beams 2 inches short at each end, nearly all fore and aft. This I could very easily account for, there being scarcely shores sufficient to prevent her from tumbling down upon her beam ends. Not one diagonal ribband or building shore to be seen under them. For my own part I should be alarmed to trust a sloop of war with her shores. The ship must inevitably have fallen out 6 Inches or more as appears by the beams the keelson lying loose in the whole, which ought to have been bolted. Not one pillar or shore to keep up the swag of those beams, for want of which the arch is become inverted.
The stern frame is made by 9 transoms with only one fashion piece – the transoms ¾ short at each end. The ship planked up outside without having any side counter timbers trimmed. Examined the keel and stern where the former instead of having more scarphs they have them flat. The lower pieces of them the scarphs are taken out on the outside instead of the inside.
There has been no regard to breadth of planks, or shifts of batts in the planking of the bottom and top sides, some planks being 14 some 6 inches in breadth – not home to the timbers in many places by 1½ inches, Scandalous workmanship as ever was seen. ¾ lower inside and close without. Two or three batts within 16 inches of each other. The bodies of those ships above mentioned are similar to our cutters at home, a very rising floor extremely sharp forward and aft, particularly forward above her load draught of water which will cause her to plunge very much in a heavy sea. When launched and equipped for the lake she will draw at least 24 feet water. Length on the keel 187 ft 6 ins.
254 A year later the Navy Commissioners prohibited such “foreign officers” from being allowed to gain “any particular knowledge of the construction of vessels” at Navy Yards, including Sackets Harbor. Circular to Commandants of Navy Yards, 18 April 1817, NCLSN, pp.224-225, T829 roll 288.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 79
Breadth moulded 55 ft 7 in. Timbers sided from 9 to 15 inches at the range of deck – in and out at gun deck side 13 ins scantling.255
Presumably the Chippewa, which he did not inspect, was no better.
Aldersley’s complaint about insufficient support for the hull was either untrue or the problem was later corrected as the New Orleans remained upright for the next 67 years. However, in 1820 there was an expense of $98.54 paid “for shoring up vessels” so perhaps Aldersley had a point.256
Unaware of the defects noted by Aldersley, the Navy Department decided it was worth enclosing both vessels to preserve them, with the shiphouses built large enough so the ships could be completed and launched from inside them. On 3 July 1815, the Board of Navy Commissioners ordered Woolsey to obtain bids for the construction of two ship houses, to be completed as soon as possible.257
The shiphouse enclosing the New Orleans at Sackets Harbor. The one covering the Chippewa at Storrs Harbor was similar. Photograph dated about 1870, photographer unknown.
Woolsey set to work, but had difficulty finding someone willing to take on the job. He received three bids, but when two of the bidders visited Sackets Harbor to inspect the situation, they discovered the job was bigger than they anticipated, and each withdrew his bid. Woolsey accepted the third bid and on 26 August 1815, signed a contract with Sailing Master William
255 John Aldersley to William Fitz William Owen, 24 February 1816, NAUK, ADM 1/2265 p.367, LAC film B-2786. This last complaint, at least, was either untrue or the problem was later corrected as the New Orleans remained upright for the next 67 years. 256 House Document 43, 23rd Congress, Second Session. 257 John Rodgers to Melancthon T. Woolsey, 3 July 1815, NCLSO, p.22, T829 roll 287.
80 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Vaughan, a resident of Sackets Harbor and as much an entrepreneur as a naval officer.258 The contract, with a surety bond of $34,000 guaranteed by Marinus W. Gilbert and William Smith, called for Vaughan to receive $17,000 to construct the two ship houses with the Navy providing the necessary materials. Each ship house was to be
Of sufficient size, clear of the ships, to admit the ships to be launched from under them, with a shingled roof & sides & ends covered with rough boards with two inches lap, the beams to be secured to the posts (besides a tenant & mortice) with an iron clamp to the end of each beam which clamp is to go round the post & bolt through the beams, with thirteen windows or ports with proper shutters to be placed at equal distances in two tiers on each side of each building, & four in each end: the whole to be completed by the 15th day of December next, & in a substantial & workmanlike manner.259
A British view of Storrs Harbor in 1816 showing the shiphouse enclosing the Chippewa (A) two small blockhouses (a a), two workshops (b b), and the “Gun boats sunk” (c c) from LAC, NMC-109694. This is not believed to be an accurate depiction of the structures extant at Storrs Harbor in 1815.
Vaughan set to work and employed 50 carpenters to build the two ship houses.260 By early 1816, both the New Orleans at Sackets Harbor and the Chippewa at Storrs Harbor were inside ship houses. These were massive structures, the largest yet seen in Northern New York. Painted red and standing almost 80 feet tall, 87 feet wide, 232 feet long and with more windows than the
258 Melancthon T. Woolsey to Navy Commissioners, 26 August 26, NAUS, RG 45, NCLR, SHL. John Rodgers to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 14 September 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 6 item 137 roll 73. 259 Copy of William Vaughan’s contract included in John Rodgers to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 14 September 1815, SNLRM, 1815 vol 6 item 137 roll 73. 260 Melancthon Woolsey to John Rodgers, 23 September 1815, NCLRC entry 220.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 81 contract required, the ship houses cost the Navy a total of $25,192.55.261 However, later surveys complained that the hasty “rough manner” of their construction made their preservation difficult.262
By the fall of 1815 the activity at Sackets and Storrs Harbors had become routine. For the Marines this meant unending hours of guard duty. In October 1815 the guard detail at Storrs Harbor was four Marine privates commanded by Corporal Frederick McGill.263 The sailors spent their time collecting and storing the tons of wood which had been cut but remained scattered about in forests and fields at war’s end. At Storrs Harbor this amounted to some 30,000 feet of “square timber” which remained uncollected as late as January 1817.264 By that time four times as much timber had been collected at Sackets Harbor and piled ready for sale. The sailors also maintained the seven warships laid up in ordinary. This latter task wasn’t always done well. In October 1816, Woolsey awoke to find the brig Sylph sitting in the mud on the harbor bottom.265 Inattention by the station’s staff had allowed the vessel’s seams to open. The Sylph was refloated but it was only a matter of time before all the vessels in ordinary would share her experience.
261 ASPNA vol 4 #568 p.633, 24 December 1834; Diary of Asa Eastwood, Entry for 23 August 1818. Asa Eastwood Papers, MSS 76, Special Collections, Bird Library, Syracuse University, Syracuse NY. In addition to the cost of the contract with Vaughan, the Navy paid $8,192.55 to purchase the boards, shingles and nails required, H.Doc 43, 23rd Congress, 2nd Session. 262 This specifically refers to the shiphouse at Storrs Harbor but as the shiphouse at Sackets Harbor was built at the same time from the same materials it is reasonable to assume that this description can be applied to both structures. Francis Mallaby to John Rodgers, 7 May 1833, NCLRC, SHL. 263 Marine Corps Muster Roll dated 31 December 1815, NAUS, RG127, Records of the United States Marine Corps, T1118 roll 5 pp.402-403. 264 Melancthon T. Woolsey to John Rodgers, 18 January 1817, NCLRC, SHL. 265 Melancthon T. Woolsey to John Rodgers, 12 October 1816, NCLRC, SHL.
82 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
The ship of the line New Orleans inside the shiphouse. From Lossing, p.616.
With the shiphouses complete, the British at Kingston found it harder to determine if construction was continuing on the New Orleans and Chippewa. In mid-May 1816, Captain William Fitz William Owen reported to Gordon Drummond that the New Orleans and Chippewa were both to mount 110 guns and were within four weeks of being ready to launch. He also reported that Sackets Harbor had “timber in the yard for a third ship of 110 guns” referring to the timber cut for the large frigate Plattsburgh but unused.266 Based apparently on rumor, in June
266 William Fitz William Owen to Gordon Drummond, 15 May 1816, LAC, RG 8, C.674 pp.33-34, film C-3171. The letter contains a list of the total naval force at Sackets Harbor dated 1 May 1816. That list also stated that the Superior mounted 66 guns and the Mohawk 44. The actual numbers were 56 and 42.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 83
1816, over a year after all work ended, a report to the Admiralty stated that “both the three deckers at Sacketts Harbour have been put in a state fit for launching.”267 These reports encouraged the British to continue to collect the materials and ordnance necessary to complete the Wolfe and Canada at Kingston. That July a report on the amount of iron ballast needed to outfit the warships built or building at Kingston included enough to build a fourth ship of the line.268
In August, 18 months after war’s end, Owen reminded William Baumgardt of the need to be aware of the status of shipbuilding at Sackets Harbor:
It will be necessary to direct your attention to the state of the ships of the United States, which are in a much more forward state than ours -- they have two first-rates which may be launched immediately, being completely planked up and caulked --they are housed over so that their operations in them may be completely shut out from the view -- their guns and stores are reported to be ready for them, and altho' we have more men employed here in the public service, yet the public service at Sackett's employs more men as directly applicable to putting themselves in a warlike position.
They have also timber enough in their yard to complete another first-rate ship if they should require one.
To meet these preparations, we have besides the ships afloat, -- the two first-rates on the stocks, and everything for their construction is yet to be completed -- their equipments however are complete except in ordnance which is now at Quebec…269
Owen was wrong. The British were now closer to completing the two new ships of the line at Kingston than the Americans were the Chippewa at Storrs Harbor and both the New Orleans and Chippewa were far from ready to launch. With both hulls now out of sight inside their shiphouses, the British assumed that construction continued after the end of the war and that this was part of the United States putting itself in a “warlike position.” The “hot war” had ended but a “cold war” continued along the American-Canadian border.
267 William Augustus Baumgardt to John Wilson Croker #49, 10 June 1816, NAUK, ADM 1/2266 p.468; LAC film B-2787. 268 William Fitz William Owen to John Wilson Croker, 23 July 1816, NAUK, ADM 1/2266 p.478; LAC film B-2787. The ballast amounts were provided by the Kingston Navy Yard’s Master Attendant Michael Spratt and the list specified the St. Lawrence, Seventy four’s Nos 1 and 2 and “One like them.” 269 William Fitz William Owen to Charles Augustus Baumgardt, 2 August 1816, NAUK, ADM 1/1563.
84 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
1817-1825 – “IN A STATE OF DECAY”
he signing of the Rush-Bagot agreement in the spring of 1817 all but eliminated the reason T for retaining a major naval station at Sackets Harbor and its satellite station at Storrs Harbor. The Jones was disarmed and placed in ordinary; only the little Lady of the Lake remained in service, more as a revenue cutter than a naval vessel.270 There was a brief flurry of activity when President Monroe visited Sackets Harbor in July of 1817 to take ship for Niagara on his tour of the north.271 The Jones was rearmed and returned to service to carry the President and his party, but afterwards was quickly disarmed and returned to ordinary.272
New Orleans inside the shiphouse from Emerson, Our County and Its People, p.646.
By 1818 everyone, including Woolsey, had plenty of time on their hands. Woolsey himself took up agriculture with some success, purchasing farms in Potsdam and Chesterfield, New York and later winning a silver cup worth ten dollars at the first Jefferson County Fair for having grown “the best pease on a two acre plot.”273 All the vessels in ordinary except Jones and Oneida were covered with a board roof and 14 of the 15 armed barges (or gunboats) built in 1814 were laid up at Storrs Harbor. One barge broke free of her moorings in a gale, drifted onto the sands at the head of Black River Bay and was damaged beyond repair.274
270 John Rodgers to Melancthon T. Woolsey, 9 May 1817, NCLSN, p.233, T829 roll 288. 271 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Melancthon T. Woolsey, 20 May 1817, SNLSO vol 12 p.11 roll 13. 272 Woolsey reactivated and rearmed the Jones assuming it would be necessary to support President Monroe’s party. The Navy Commissioners disagreed and ordered him to return the vessel to ordinary. Woolsey was vindicated when Monroe arrived, decided the little schooner Lady of the Lake was inadequate, and ordered the Jones back into service. NCLSN and NCLR, SHL: Melancthon T. Woolsey to John Rodgers, 7 June 1817; Rodgers to Woolsey, 16 June 1817; Woolsey to Rodgers, 27 June 1817; and Woolsey to Rodgers, 19 August 1817. 273 Letters from Melancthon T. Woolsey to Sewall Raymond dated 28 March, 8 April, 25 June 1817 and 25 March 1818, part of item VII.A.3 “General Correspondence,” Sewall Raymond papers at the Potsdam Public Museum, Potsdam NY. Proceedings of the First Cattle Show and Fair of the Agricultural Society of Jefferson County, September 1818 (Watertown NY, 1818) p.21, at the Jefferson County Historical Society, Watertown, NY. 274 Statement of the United States Naval Forces on Lake Ontario, 1 November 1818, AF roll 78 frames 65-66.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 85
By the spring of 1821, the barracks, workshops, storehouses and one of the blockhouses at Storrs Harbor had decayed to the point of uselessness and the Marine barracks at Sackets Harbor would not last another winter. The second blockhouse at Storrs Harbor remained in a reasonable state of repair as it was used as living quarters for the resident shipkeeper.275 Woolsey obtained estimates on the cost of building a new brick Marine barracks and submitted them to the Navy Department.276 The reaction in Washington was to order the removal of the Marine guard altogether.277 By now, only the Lady of the Lake, New Orleans and Chippewa remained intact; all other vessels were “sunk & in a state of decay.”278 The Sackets and Storrs Harbor stations together were reduced to fewer than 50 men, including officers.279
Three years later the Navy Department decided to close down the lake stations completely. This action, however, could not be taken until congressional approval was assured. While waiting for Congress to act, the Navy Department received a letter from the Trustees of the Village of Sackets Harbor asking that the sunken warships be removed as soon as possible as the area’s doctors had certified that bad airs emanating from the decaying wood were causing disease in the vicinity.280 Although the vessels in ordinary were decayed, the New Orleans and Chippewa remained in good condition. In early 1825 Lieutenant Samuel W. Adams, who replaced Woolsey in command at Sackets Harbor, reported that an expenditure of no more than $700 would secure the ship houses for both vessels for the next seven or eight years.281
275 By 1833, this second blockhouse used as shipkeeper’s quarters required some repairs. Francis Mallaby to Navy Commissioners,7 May, 1833, NCLRC, SHL. 276 Melancthon T. Woolsey to Smith Thompson, 17 July 1821, SNLRM vol 4 item 34 roll 90. 277 John Rodgers to Smith Thompson, 21 July 1821, SNLRM, 1821 vol 4 item 58 roll 90. Smith Thompson to Woolsey, 2 October 1821, SNLSO, vol 14 p.227 roll 14. By January 1820 the Marine guard at Sackets and Storrs Harbors still totaled 32 men: 2 Lieutenants, 2 Sergeants, 2 Corporals, 2 Music and 24 Privates, NAUS, RG 45, Reports of the Secretary of the Navy to Congress, 31 December 1819, vol 2 p.521. 278 David Porter to Smith Thompson, 27 October 1821, SNLRM, vol 6 item 21 roll 91. 279 Muster Roll, Sackets Harbor, 31 July 1822, NAUS, RG 45, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, T829 roll 18 pp.231-232. 280 Egbert Ten Eyck to Samuel L. Southard, 18 March 1824, SNLRM 1824 vol 7 item 141 roll 100. 281 Samuel W. Adams to John Rodgers, 10 January 1825, NCLRC, SHL.
86 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
On 3 March 1825 Congress passed a law authorizing the sale of all the vessels on the Lake Stations with the exception of the New Orleans and Chippewa, which were to be retained.282 Navy Secretary Samuel L. Southard had anticipated this and had directed the Navy Commissioners to begin preparations to sell the vessels some two weeks earlier.283 On 23 March 1825 Robert Hugunin submitted a bid of $8,000 for all the sunken vessels at Sackets Harbor, which was accepted.284 The Lady of the Lake and the remains of the fourteen barges, now sunk at Storrs Harbor, were sold separately on 6 June 1825.285 By the end of April 1826, only the New Orleans and Chippewa remained.286 The station’s staff consisted of Sailing Master Advertisement in the Albany Argus, 17 June 1825 Augustus Ford and two part-time ship keepers, one for each vessel.287
282 Public Statutes at Large of the USA, vol 4, 18th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter CI (Boston: Little & Brown, 1846); Senate Document 2, 19th Congress, 1st Session, 2 December 1825. 283 Samuel L. Southard to William Bainbridge, 14 February 1825, NCLRC, SHL. 284 Robert Hugunin to William Bainbridge, 23 March 1825, NCLRC, SHL; William Bainbridge to Samuel L. Southard, 2 and 3 June 1825, SNLRM 1825 vol 4 items 66 and 71 roll 102. 285 Samuel W. Adams to William Bainbridge, 6 June 1825, NCLRC, SHL. 286 One gun brig, Jefferson, was never physically removed and its sunken remains still exist at Sackets Harbor. At least one other vessel, the frigate Mohawk, remained sunk in the harbor until removed as part of the Army Corps of Engineers’ dredging effort during 1828-1829. Augustus Ford to Samuel L. Southard, 5 April 1826, SNLRO, 1826 vol 3 item 59 roll 42. Samuel W. Adams to Samuel L. Southard, 24 April 1826, SNLRO, 1826 vol 4 item 22 roll 43. Alfred Mordecai to Hiram Steele, 25 August 1828, NAUS, RG 77, CELS vol 2 M65 roll 2. 287 William Bainbridge to Samuel L. Southard, 2 February 1826, SNLRM, 1826 vol 2 item 33 roll 104. Samuel L. Southard to Augustus Ford, 3 February 1826, NAUS, RG 45, Orders p.326, T829 roll 384; ASPNA, vol 4 #568 p.633, 27 December 1834.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 87
Storrs Harbor in 1824, showing the Chippewa’s shiphouse as “A”. The only other structure remaining at that time (not shown) was a blockhouse used as a shipkeeper’s residence. 288
1825-1834 – THE END OF THE CHIPPEWA
ver the next few years almost everyone, including official Washington, forgot about the O vessels at Sackets and Storrs Harbors. By the end of 1825, the Navy Department lost track of exactly where the Chippewa was located, listing it as “under cover at Sackett’s Harbor.”289 Table 18 documents a sample of the references to the Chippewa in the historical literature. In 1827 both the New Orleans and Chippewa disappeared from the official list of naval vessels under construction.290 At Sackets Harbor, Sailing Master Ford found his job so undemanding that he had time to study law, and eventually was admitted to the New York bar some years later.291
288 Van Cleave, James, Reminiscences of the Early Period of Sailing Vessels and Steam Boats on Lake Ontario (Handwritten and hand drawn, Lewiston NY, 1877) p.106; from the copy located at the City Clerk’s office, Oswego NY. 289 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy, With the President’s Message, Showing the Operations of that Department in 1825, ASPNA Vol 2 No. 268, 19th Congress, 1st Session, 2 December 1825. 290 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy Showing the Condition of the Navy in the Year 1827, ASPNA Vol 2 No. 339, 20th Congress, 1st Session, 4 December 1827. 291 Augustus Ford was admitted to practice at the 1833 session of the Jefferson County Court, Watertown NY; Child, Hamilton, Geographical Gazetteer of Jefferson County N.Y., 1684-1890 (Syracuse NY: The Syracuse Journal Co., 1890) p.65. Ford was a well-established Sackets Harbor attorney by 1850. See Legal Documents, Elisha & Walter B. Camp Papers, Jefferson County Historical Society, Watertown, NY.
88 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Table 18 – Chippewa – As Documented in the Literature Item Emmons 1853292 Chapelle 1949293 DANFS 1969294 Palmer 1984295 Bauer 1991296 Canney 2001297 Ship Type Ship Ship Ship of the line Ship of the line Ship of the line Ship of the line Rate (Guns) 44 (pierced for 64) 74 or 130 74 (carried 87) 110/120 87 87-120 Built At Sackets Harbor Sackets Harbor Sackets Harbor Sackets Harbor Storrs Harbor Storrs Harbor Laid Down 1815 1815 Jan 1815 1815 5 Oct 1814 4 Oct 1814 Builder Brown Brothers Eckford & Browns Eckford & Browns Brown Brothers Brown Brothers Tons Burthen 2,805 Approx. 3,200 2,805 2,805 Keel (feet) 204’ 204’ Approx. 183’ 204’ 204’ Beam (feet) 56’ 9” 56’ Approx. 56’ 56’ 56’ Date of Sale Soon after 1821 Before 1824 1 Nov 1833 Burned 1834 1 Nov 1823 1823
In 1828, Ford requested and received $74.87 to make some necessary repairs to both ship houses, but this was the only known expense to preserve the New Orleans and Chippewa prior to 1834.
Visitors to Sackets Harbor after 1815 often commented on the presence of the New Orleans and its shiphouse. A few even recognized the existence of the Chippewa. One
such visitor, Francis Hall, wrote in One of the few maps showing the location of the Storrs Harbor Navy his journal Yard. Detail from David S. Burr’s 1826 map of the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, NY. From his 1829 Atlas of the State of New York. One of the largest vessels in the world is now on the stocks here; her dimensions are 196 feet keel, by 57 beam; she is built over; to preserve her, and may literally be said to be housed: there is an observatory on the top of the building, commanding an extensive view of the lake, and flat wooded country. About a mile up the river, there is another vessel of equal dimensions, built, and housed, literally in the woods.298
292 George F. Emmons, The Navy of the United States from the Commencement 1775-1853 (Washington: Gideon & Co., 1853) p.18. 293 Howard I. Chapelle, The History of the American Sailing Navy (New York: W. W. Norton, 1949) pp.302, 535 294 DANFS, II p.111, IV pp.581-582. 295 Richard F. Palmer, “The Great Warship that Waited and Waited and…” Inland Seas 40 (1984) pp.272-285. 296 K. Jack Bauer and Stephen S. Roberts, Register of Ships of the U. S. Navy, 1775-1990; Major Combatants (New York: Greenwood Press, 1991) p.4. 297 Donald L. Canney, Sailing Warships of the U. S. Navy (Annapolis MD: Naval Institute Press, 2001) pp.191-192, 203. Canney apparently based his data on Bauer.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 89
A decade later another British visitor, Basil Hall, wrote in his journal that during his stay at Sackets Harbor he
Had plenty of day-light, however, for examining at leisure the large three-decked ship which is on the stocks there. It is said that she was built in thirty-one days from the time the first tree was cut down; and I met an American gentleman on the spot, who told me he had been present at the time when this singular operation was accomplished. An immense number of shipbuilders, it seems, all expert workmen, were sent from New York, and other sea-port towns. These were assisted by an unlimited number of labouring hands, teams of oxen, horses, carts and so on. In a couple of weeks more, he told me, she might have been launched and all her guns, masts and sails on board, ready for action.
Hall went on to state that
The great American ship above alluded to, is built of oak in all the essential parts and is filled up in others with red cedar. As far as I could judge, this vessel seems to be put together, notwithstanding the hurry, in a very business-like style. She is covered over with an immense house, or shed, which looks, at a distance, like the forest-dwelling of some inhabitant of the earth, the giant contemporary – if any such there were – of the mammoth and megalosaurus.299
Although the New Orleans and her shiphouse were readily visible to anyone living in or visiting Sackets Harbor, the Chippewa and her shiphouse, located three miles up Black River Bay, was not. Nevertheless, it was often a destination for weekend rides by the young men and women in the village. One such took place on at Saturday morning at the end of June 1833. That day four young men and women took one of the last opportunities to visit the ship when they
Took a ride on horseback … to Storr’s Harbour — alighted — walked under the ship and found a place, though which — with great difficulty — we entered the ship. After we had visited it we mounted our horses and returned.300
The official neglect of the Chippewa changed when a real estate problem developed. It seems the navy had never purchased the land on which the New Orleans and Chippewa stood. The property at Storrs Harbor was owned at war’s end by Adam Brown, Elisha Camp and Henry Eckford. In 1818, Eckford purchased Camp’s one-quarter interest in the property for $1,000.301 This gave Camp a modest $106.50 profit for his three and a half year investment. Shortly
298 Francis Hall, Travels in Canada and the United States in 1816 and 1817 (London: Longman, Hurst, Orme, & Brown, 1818) pp.170-171. 299 Basil Hall, Travels in North America in the Years 1827 and 1828 Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Cadell & Co., 1829) pp.353- 354. 300 Sophie Camp to George Hale Camp, 2 July 1833, Camp Family Papers, private collection. 301 Deeds, Liber N p.94, Jefferson County Clerk’s office, Watertown NY.
90 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 thereafter Brown sold his interest in the property to Eckford. In 1822 Henry Eckford submitted a bill to the Navy Department for “eight years rent due for the property occupied by the United States Navy Department at Sacketts and Storrs Harbour where the line of battle ships are now on the stocks under cover.”302 The portion of the bill pertaining to “Navy Point and hospital grounds at Sacketts Harbour” was paid promptly from the Navy’s contingent expenses account but nothing was paid towards the rent due for the use of Storrs Harbor.303 Whether this was an oversight or intentional cannot be determined from the available documentation.
In late 1827, Eckford submitted another bill for rent for both locations totaling $4,160.304 This time the Navy Department’s budget could not handle the expense and, for the first time, the matter ended up in the hands of Congress. Congress, in turn, referred Eckford’s bill back to the Navy Department for its opinion and additional information.305
Eckford chose an inopportune moment to present his latest bill. The outgoing administration of John Quincy Adams ultimately chose to defer the matter to its successor. That administration, Andrew Jackson’s, was definitely not inclined to simply pay the bill as received. During the next two years Henry Eckford resubmitted his bill to the Navy Department several times, adding additional rent and interest each time.306 The navy finally referred the matter to the 4th Auditor of the Treasury, who informed Eckford that “there was no law or contract which could authorize the treasury department to allow the charge.” An annoyed Eckford once again presented his bill to Congress. However, before Congress could act on his latest request, Eckford left for Istanbul to build warships for the Sultan of Turkey, where he died on 12 November 1832.307 It was left to Eckford’s estate to take up the matter of the overdue rent with both the Navy Department and congress.308
302 Henry Eckford to Smith Thompson, 30 December 1822, SNLRM, 1822 vol 7 item 150 roll 94. 303 On 5 March 1823 Eckford received $2,320 in rent for his property at Navy Point and the Naval Hospital grounds at Sackets Harbor. No rent was received for the use of Storrs Harbor. Constant Freeman to Samuel L. Southard, 27 October 1823, SNLRM 1823 vol 6 item 16 roll 97. 304 Henry Eckford to Churchill C. Cambreling, 20 January 1827, SNLRM, 1827 vol 1 item 47 roll 111. A year later the amount had risen to $4,700: Churchill C. Cambreling to Samuel L. Southard, 9 January 1828, SNLRM, 1828 vol 1 item 33 roll 113. 305 Committee of Claims to Samuel L. Southard, 18 February 1828, SNLRM, 1828 vol 2 item 95, M124 roll 113; ASPNA vol 1 #371, 20th Congress 2nd Session, 8 December 1828; H.Rep 84, 20th Congress, 2nd Session, 17 February 1829. 306 Francis B. Ogden to John Branch, 13 June 1829, SNLRM, 1829 vol 6 item 72 roll 119. 307 Michael Hoffman to John Branch, 20 December 1830, SNLRM, 1830 Volume 11 item 116 roll 125; H.Rep 41, 21st Congress, 2nd Session, 20 January 1831. 308 Charles P. Clinch to Levi Woodbury, 13 March 1834, SNLRM, 1834 vol 3 item 72 roll 142; Levi Woodbury to House of Representatives, ASPNA, vol 1 #539, 23rd Congress, 1st Session, 17 March 1834.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 91
In May 1833, as a result of this controversy, the Navy Commissioners asked Sailing Master Francis Mallaby, who replaced Ford as officer in charge at Sackets Harbor in February 1831, for a report on the condition of the two ships of the line at Sackets and Storrs Harbors.309 Mallaby reported that the New Orleans was well preserved with “no defects of any consequence.” However, the Chippewa, while “generally sound and in good preservation” had two defective places: “about 3 feet of the fore end of the keelson is decayed half way through, and one lower futtock amidships is also decayed.”310
The Navy Commissioners recommended that both vessels be sold, but Navy Secretary Levi Woodbury disagreed. Woodbury felt that one vessel, the New Orleans, should be preserved and the Chippewa and its ship house sold. The New Orleans, Woodbury suggested, “would not sell for much” and “might as well be permitted to remain.”311
Consequently, on 4 June 1833, under orders from Woodbury, the Navy Commissioners instructed Mallaby to sell the “ship and ship house at Storrs Harbor.”312 This order, which Congress did not approve and was unaware of, was in clear violation of the 1825 law which specifically directed that the Chippewa not be sold. Secretary Woodbury was aware of this law (and if he
Secretary of the Navy Levi Woodbury originally was not, the Navy Commissioners certainly were and would have informed him) and it is extremely unlikely that he would have decided to sell the Chippewa on his own authority. Although nothing in writing has yet been found to confirm it, the order almost certainly originated, probably verbally, with President Andrew Jackson. Given the amount of rent demanded (by 1833 now approaching $12,000313) and the involvement of the estate of such a well-known person as Henry Eckford, Jackson was probably aware of the case. It would be perfectly in character for him to have instructed Secretary Woodbury to save money by getting rid of the Chippewa as fast as possible and not to worry about Congress.
309 John Rodgers to Francis Mallaby and Augustus Ford, 18 February 1831, NCLSO, pp.502-503, T829 roll 287; Augustus Ford to John Rodgers, 14 March 1831, NCLR, SHL. 310 Francis Mallaby to John Rodgers, 7 May 1833, NCLR, SHL. 311 Levi Woodbury to Samuel L. Southard, 2 April 1834, House Document 43, 23rd Congress, Second Session, 27 December 1834. 312 Charles Stewart to Francis Mallaby, 4 June 1833, NCLSO, p.614, T829 roll 287. 313 Bill from Estate of Henry Eckford, 1 January 1834, SNLRM, 1834 vol 3 item 51 roll 142.
92 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
As ordered, Mallaby placed advertisements for the sale of the Chippewa in newspapers at Sackets Harbor, Watertown, Oswego and Albany specifying the condition that the successful bidder must post a $1,000 bond to guarantee that the ship and ship house would be removed by 1 November 1833 or that arrangements had been made so that the United States would not owe any additional rent to the heirs of Henry Eckford after that time.314 Accordingly, on 5 August 1833 an auction was held at the home of Phiranda Advertisement in the Watertown Eagle, 20 June1833 Butterfield, a prominent Sackets Harbor resident, and the Chippewa, the ship house and a few left-over naval stores were sold. Unfortunately, and in keeping with the shadowy nature of the Chippewa itself, no reliable record has yet been discovered to tell who purchased the vessel, how much he paid for it, or what he did with it. Local custom, however, has it that the ship house and the Chippewa were both burned to recover the iron they contained.315
While burning is a reasonable fate, the area’s newspapers, from August 1833 until early 1835, have no record of such a fire.316 Given the size of the ship house, burning would have created a huge smoke cloud visible during the day for miles in any direction, and if burned at night it would have been seen from an even greater distance. As newspapers, including several from Watertown only ten miles away, were always eager for local news, it is unlikely that the Chippewa could be
314 Oswego NY, Oswego Palladium, 19 June 1833; Watertown NY, Watertown Eagle, 20 June 1833; Albany NY, Albany Argus, 27 June 1833 to 29 July 1833. 315 One later newspaper account has the Chippewa purchased by Edward Sloman, a Sackets Harbor resident, but no corroborating evidence of this fact has yet been found. Watertown Daily Times, Watertown NY, 28 January 1930. 316 Newspapers searched include the Watertown NY Watertown Eagle and Watertown Register, the Oswego NY Oswego Free Press and Oswego Palladium, the Albany NY Albany Argus and Evening Journal, the Utica NY Utica Sentinel & Gazette, Niles Weekly Register, the Kingston UC Kingston Chronicle and Chronicle and Gazette, the Niagara UC Niagara Gleaner and Niagara Reporter, the York UC Upper Canada Gazette and Canadian Freeman, the Geneva NY Geneva Courier and the Waterloo NY Seneca Observer.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 93 burned without anyone reporting the event. It seems more likely that the Chippewa and its ship house were slowly and quietly dismantled over a period of several months with the wood sold for fuel and the iron as scrap. This was the procedure followed when the New Orleans was broken up in the winter of 1883. It is almost certain, however, that the Chippewa was disposed of by the end of October 1833 as the number of shipkeepers at the Sackets Harbor station was reduced from two to one after that month.317 Unlike the New Orleans fifty years later, there is no evidence yet found that local artisans used any part of the wood taken from the Chippewa to create souvenirs or items of furniture.
Whatever its fate, the Chippewa was a thing of the past by early 1834 when Congress resumed debating the bill to pay Eckford’s heirs. At the time, Congress was oblivious to the Chippewa’s fate. The Secretary of the Navy, Levi Woodbury, in his annual report to Congress for 1833, made no mention whatever of Storrs Harbor, the Chippewa or Henry Eckford.318 On 28 March 1834, Samuel Southard, Chairman of the Senate Naval Committee and a former Secretary of the Navy, stated in his report to the full Senate that the Chippewa “was in part built before the peace of 1815, and still remains there, the land having been from that time to the present, in the possession of the government.”319 and he recommended payment. On 1 April 1834 Southard asked Secretary Woodbury’s opinion of a draft of a private bill to pay Eckford’s estate the rent demanded. The second section of this bill directed that the Secretary of the Navy cause “the vessels New Orleans and Chippewa, belonging to the United States, now at the said Navy Point and Storrs’ Harbor, to be sold.”320 These actions on Southard’s part are clear evidence that President Jackson and the Navy Department made no effort to ask Congress’s prior approval or even to inform it afterwards that the Chippewa had been sold. This matter was belatedly taken care of in a letter written by Secretary Woodbury to Senator Southard on April 2, 1834 in which Woodbury reported that the “vessel at Storrs Harbor has been already sold and the occupation of the land discontinued.”321 And there the matter died. Congress never addressed the Navy Department’s violation of the 1825 law, and the matter never reached the attention of the newspapers. The Chippewa faded into an obscurity so deep that 20 years later, when Lieutenant George F. Emmons was using the records of the Navy Department to prepare his list of warships,
317 ASPNA Vol 4 No. 568 p.633, 24 December 1834. 318 ASPNA Vol 4 No. 519 p.350, 30 November 1833. 319 S.Doc 225, 23rd Congress, 1st Session, also in ASPNA Vol 4 No. 542 p.510, 28 March 1834. 320 H.Doc 43, 23rd Congress, 2nd Session, 27 December 1834. 321 Levi Woodbury to Samuel L. Southard, 2 April 1834, H.Doc 43, 23rd Congress, 2nd Session, 27 December 1834.
94 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015 he recorded the Chippewa as a 44 gun frigate disposed of “soon after” 1821 thereby beginning over 150 years of mistakes and misstatements in the historical record. 322
The Waters of Storrs Harbor (now Muskellunge Bay)
In 1838 Henry Eckford’s estate sold the property at Storrs Harbor to Elisha Camp, the same man who originally owned a share in that land.323 However, the matter of the rent due for the government’s use of the land remained unresolved. Eckford’s heirs finally got Congress to approve payment for the rental of the land at Sackets and Storrs Harbors, but not until 1842 and then for only a fraction of what they had asked for.324 In particular, Congress only allowed rent for Storrs Harbor from January 1, 1827, as
Nothing was said by Mr. Eckford for suffering the Chippewa to remain upon his land until 1827, when he made his second claim for rent of Navy Point. Even when he made his first claim for the rent of Navy Point, nothing was said of rent for Storr’s harbor.325
322 George F. Emmons, The Navy of the United States from the commencement, 1775 to 1853 (Washington: Gideon & Co., 1853) p.18. 323 Deed of sale, Liber E3 p.349, Jefferson County Clerk’s office, Watertown NY. 324 Public Statutes at Large of the USA, 27th Congress, 2nd Session, Chapter CCXI, 29 August 1842. Eckford’s heirs received $3,783.97 in rent for the land containing both the Chippewa and the New Orleans through 1 January 1842. 325 S.Doc 228, 26th Congress, 1st Session, 25 February 1840.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 95
Not satisfied with the amount they received, Eckford’s heirs re-submitted their claim only to have it finally rejected by the United States Senate in 1852.326 By the mid-19th century no evidence remained to show that the Navy ever used Storrs Harbor. Industrial development on the Black River during the later years of the nineteenth century caused the bay to silt up to the point where the water’s
New Orleans as seen from the stern while inside the shiphouse. depth in many places was from Emerson, Our County and Its People, p.646. more suited to a canoe than a ship of the line. Like the Chippewa, the name Storrs Harbor has also disappeared. Modern maps call the area Muskellunge Bay.
326 Senate Report 330, 32nd Congress, 1st Session, 10 August 1852.
96 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
1835-1869 – “BECOMING PRECARIOUS”
n January 1838, a new problem faced Sailing Master Francis Mallaby. The water level in Lake I Ontario, which usually varied a foot or so seasonally, began to rise several feet. Usually winter ice blocked the harbor and protected the peninsula on which the New Orleans sat inside its shiphouse, but that year there was open water in January and matters were becoming serious. The ship and shiphouse were no longer on a peninsula, now they resided on an island.
The recent heavy gales and uncommon rise of water on this Lake have materially damaged a part of Navy Point by cutting a channel through and contracting the whole strip of land much within its former limits. An application from the citizens has been some time before Congress for the protection of this point as conducive to the safety of the harbour. I do not consider the ship or house in any immediate danger but make this communication to keep you advised of the actual state of things here.327
By the beginning of summer things had gotten worse, as Mallaby reported to the Board of Navy Commissioners at the end of June:
The situation of the ship house on Navy Point is becoming precarious; the waters of the lake, contrary to all expectation and precedent, have continued to rise, and a small portion of Navy Point, only, remains above water and unless the waters should subside before the fall gales come on, I apprehend danger to the buildings.328
Two weeks later Mallaby reported that some money had to be spent if the New Orleans was not to be destroyed by the rising water:
For the further preservation of the ship and house on Navy Point, it will be necessary to lay heavy pieces of timber along the whole North line of the building, about six feet from the foundation, securing the same by transverse pieces under the sills, the intermediate space to be filled in with heavy stones, and on the N.E. & South sides, an additional quantity of stones to be deposited along the underpinning. The probable cost will be as follows
For 100 cords stone delivered and placed $700 Timber & other materials, labor, Transportation of timber &c & 250 total $950 329
327 Francis Mallaby to Navy Commissioners, 15 January 1838, NCLRC, entry 220. 328 Francis Mallaby to Navy Commissioners, 29 June 1838, NCLRC, entry 220. 329 Francis Mallaby to Navy Commissioners, 10 July 1838, NCLRC, entry 220.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 97
A month later the condition of the shiphouse had deteriorated even further. Mallaby must have been extremely frustrated by this point, especially as he recognized that a complete solution would now require a major effort but one which he still had no authority to implement:
Since my letter of 10th Ult much damage has been done to the underpinning of the ship house, a great part on the north side having been washed in by the force of the sea during a heavy gale. The height of the water will prevent its being perfectly replaced could that be done it would be liable to be thrown down unless the whole north side is protected by a wharf and embankment of stone.330
Finally the Navy Commissioners authorized some action – but apparently not due to the condition of the New Orleans and her shiphouse on Navy Point, or now more properly Navy Island. Rather it was the Navy Commissioners’ concern with the claim by the heirs of shipwright Henry Eckford for back rent due for the use of his property:
In compliance with instructions contained in your letter of 11th instant I have the honor to transmit a diagram of Navy Point and the property connected with it belonging to the estate of Henry Eckford deceased embracing the plot of ground designated as Fort Tompkins and the slip of land running from there to the ship house have a large portion of the latter being under water as shown by the diagram.331
330 Francis Mallaby to Navy Commissioners, 6 August 1838, NCLRC, entry 220. 331 Francis Mallaby to Navy Commissioners, 18 August 1838, NCLRC, entry 220.
98 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Plan of the situation at Sackets Harbor, August 1838, showing how high water in Lake Ontario turned Navy Point into an island. Attachment in letter from Francis Mallaby to Navy Commissioners, 18 August 1838, NCLRC. Map from NAUS, RG71.
The problem would not be Mallaby’s for much longer. That winter he applied for and received 30 days leave. Afterwards he was ordered to report to the receiving ship at the New York Navy Yard.332 His replacement was 67 year old Sailing Master Augustus Ford who was returning to Sackets Harbor. Until 1836 Ford had been caring for the warships out of commission at New York City. He was than granted a leave of absence to return to Sackets Harbor. There, in February 1838, he became the inspector of common schools for the town of Hounsfield which includes the village of Sackets Harbor. Ford remained in that post even after he was officially ordered to take charge of the “public property” at Sackets Harbor on 1 May 1839. Unlike in a later century, there was apparently no problem at the time with an active-duty naval officer also serving in a civil government position.
332 Gary M. Gibson, Service Records of U. S. Navy and Marine Corps Officers Stationed on Lake Ontario During the War of 1812, 2nd edition (Sackets Harbor, 2012), pp.115-116.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 99
In the spring of 1838, while Francis Mallaby was still in charge at Sackets Harbor, he dealt with what could have been the third “Battle of Sackets Harbor” as a New York militia general informed him that March:
Sunday last, four British subjects from Kingston and a Capt of Dragoons were in this vicinity — at Three Mile Bay they had some difficulty with citizens by the rude and insulting manner they conducted themselves. They were well armed with pistols, knives &c which were then taken from them — their object in coming over was to burn the large ship at your place.333
The “large ship” was, of course, the New Orleans. This was the time when some Canadian citizens attempted to rebel against the British colonial government. They were aided by a number of American citizens who sympathized with their goals. Offended by this support a number of Canadian loyalists apparently planned to strike back by destroying the ship and shiphouse at Sackets Harbor. Fortunately nothing came of the attempt but it probably broke the monotony of what was now for Mallaby a very undemanding job.
A few years later the Navy Commissioners asked Augustus Ford for a report on the status of the New Orleans. The ship was found to be intact but beginning to suffer seriously from dry rot. If she were ever needed a lot of repairs would have to be made before construction could resume.
Agreeable to your request, I have given the ship New Orleans laying in the Ship House at Sacketts Harbor, a thorough examination and it is thought the following description of her condition will prove correct.
I examined the keel with care and found the four splices of the keel much decayed by dry rot though there is no appearance of the rot on the outside.
The floor timbers after boring into them in every direction I found about one half of them badly affected by dry rot. The other half good and sound — the part of the keelson that is bolted down is affected by dry rot. The other part that is laying in the hold of the ship alongside is perfectly sound.
I found the lower part of the stem & spoon[?] defective from dry rot. The upper part of both is sound.
The stern post is defective its whole length. Transoms all good except the lower one, which is partially decayed by dry rot.
The timbers of the ship I found good from about 18 feet from the keel upwards, below that to the keel, affected by dry rot.
333 A. N. Corss to Francis Mallaby, 15 March 1838 in a letter from Mallaby to Navy Commissioners, 17 March 1838, NCLRC, entry 220.
100 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
The entire sealing or inside plank I found perfectly good. The outside plank I found good except in a few places — The beams are all good and bolted down to the clamps.
There is no clamps or sealing in the ship above the lower Gun Deck, and the sides of the ship between the ports are timbered with red cedar.
On the outside the ship is planked entirely with the exception of her stern which is open above the main transom.334
The Navy Commissioners themselves were shortly afterwards replaced by a series of separate boards. If the board now concerned with the New Orleans, that of Construction and Repair, was aware of Ford’s report, they took no action on it. The New Orleans remained undisturbed inside its shiphouse.
Painting of the New Orleans shiphouse on Navy Point at Sackets Harbor by L. L. Lowell in 1869
In April 1842, shortly before Ford prepared his report, Congress asked the secretary of war to report on the defenses on Lake Ontario. As part of that report, Major General Winfield Scott stated that:
334 Asa Malloy to Augustus Ford, 6 May 1842, enclosed in a letter from Ford to Navy Commissioners, 6 May 1842, NCLRC, entry 220.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 101
The United States own no vessel, of any kind, on Lake Ontario, but have had, at Sackett’s Harbor, one or two on the stocks, and partially planked, intended for war, since the autumn of 1814. These frames, having been under cover since put up, may still be worth being finished and launched.335
In the same report, the engineer department estimated that a “suitable work” of defense at Sackets Harbor to mount 26 guns could be built for $75,000. Once again, nothing was done.
In 1845 some repairs were made to the ship and shiphouse at Sackets Harbor. $600 was spent “reshiving and blocking” the New Orleans and the shiphouse was renailed, shingled, painted and the windows and doors repaired for a total cost of $1,571.99. A stone bulkhead was also built to keep the water from flowing under the ship. The shiphouse was now listed as being “in good repair” and worth $18,000.336
In 1846 Congress considered the petition of the residents of Jefferson County, New York, for fortifications to protect Sackets Harbor. Although nothing came of the request, as part of their report, the House Committee on Military Affairs included, as part of the list of items justifying those fortifications, that:
On the stocks [is] one of the largest class of ships, in good order, and which, it is represented, can be launched on short notice. It is covered by a large and expensive building, which also contains ten 68 pound and twenty five 32-pound cannon, and about seven thousand shot and shells.337
Despite the previous year’s repairs, the ship house’s paint was worn and its shingles also needed attention.338 The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks approved additional work on the ship house: “covering the loaded frames on either side of the launching door of the ship house; and also for painting the house as recommended by you.”339 The ship house was painted a light yellow instead of its previous white (as it was cheaper) at a total cost of $278.60.340 Apparently the shingles remained as they were.
335 Winfield Scott to J. C. Spencer, 16 April 1842 in Public Defenses on Lake Ontario, 18 May 1842, H.Doc 225, 27th Congress, 2nd Session. 336 Thomas Brownell to Joseph Smith, 31 August and 15 November 1845, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 5, Letters Received. 337 H.Rep 449, 29th Congress, 1st Session. 338 Joseph P. Sanford to Joseph Smith, 6 September 1846, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 5, Letters Received. 339 Bureau of Yards & Docks to Joseph P. Sanford, 10 September 1846, transcription at Sackets Harbor Battlefield Library. 340 Joseph P. Sanford to Joseph Smith, 17 September 1846, transcription at Sackets Harbor Battlefield Library; Monthly Report to Bureau of Yards and Docks for July 1847, 5 August 1847 by Charles F. Platt.
102 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
In 1847, as a result of increasing tensions with Great Britain, the Sackets Harbor naval station increased in size. Two new houses were authorized, one for the commandant and one for the second in command, a lieutenant or sailing master.341
An inventory in 1849 listed the New Orleans as covered with a shiphouse but without further comment as to its condition, now probably worse than it was seven years earlier. There were also ten 68-pound and 25 32-pound smoothbore cannon at Sackets Harbor, presumably to arm the ship should it ever be finished and placed into service.342
In 1851 “random necessary repairs of the buildings & ship house have been made.” The ship keepers’ house also underwent some necessary repairs to its roof.343 A year later the commandant, James MacIntosh, reported to the Navy Department that “the ship house, barn, ice house, and wood houses attached to the dwellings are in good order, and the ship as far as I can judge in an excellent state of preservation.”344 MacIntosh obviously did not inspect the New Orleans very carefully. The widespread dry rot reported in 1842 still existed and was certainly worse a decade later. In 1856 the stones under the ship were replaced and a lot of stone placed on the south side of the ship house, “to protect in some measure the foundation.”345
The 900-foot wharf between the land and the shiphouse in 1858. George Hollins to Joseph Smith, 12 November 1858, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 5, Letters Received.
341 Charles F. Platt to Joseph Smith, 5 June 1847, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 5, Letters Received. 342 Horace B. Sawyer to Joseph Smith, 18 December 1849, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 5, Letters Received. 343 Horace B. Sawyer to Joseph Smith, 30 August 1851, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 5, Letters Received. 344 James M. MacIntosh to Joseph Smith, 23 November 1852, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 5, Letters Received. 345 Josiah Tattnall to Bureau of Yards & Docks, 4 June 1856, transcription at Sackets Harbor Battlefield Library.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 103
By 1858 the wharf (or pier) connecting the ship keeper’s house with the shiphouse needed about $650 worth of repairs.346 Again, nothing was done and the following spring a report to the Navy Department stated that “part of the pier has been washed away and the lake will make an opening separating the shiphouse from the main land.” As twenty years before, Navy Point was about to become an island.347 Repairs were made but it was becoming increasingly difficult to preserve the New Orleans.
In the summer of 1860, historian Benjamin Lossing visited Sackets Harbor and met with the commandant, Josiah Tattnall. Tattnall accompanied Lossing to the New Orleans, where he found her shiphouse “embowered in shrubbery and trees.” After examining the New Orleans herself, Lossing optimistically reported that “so well has she been taken care of that her timbers are perfectly sound.”348
On 27 May 1861, a violent gale of wind, “of more severity than has ever been known here by the oldest habitant,” struck Sackets Harbor. The ship house and its foundation were badly damaged:
The woodwork of the causeway leading to the ship house has been in a great measure swept away and the stone work with which it was connected, scattered and piled about in various places. The shingling on the east side of the ship house in many places has been stripped off.349
Two months later, the naval station’s current commandant, Elie LaValette, reported to the Navy Department that the shingles on the east side of the ship house were being replaced. However, he presented a very pessimistic view of the overall state of the New Orleans and her ship house: “the ship on the stocks is now in a very decayed state as well as the shiphouse.”350
With the outbreak of the American Civil War, fears that some differences between the United States and Great Britain over British support for the Confederacy might deteriorate into war, led some to consider completing, launching and arming the New Orleans for service on Lake Ontario.
346 George Nicholas Hollins to Joseph Smith, 12 November 1858, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 5, Letters Received. 347 George Nicholas Hollins to Joseph Smith, 4 April 1859, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 5, Letters Received. 348 Benjamin Lossing, The Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812 (New York, 1869; repr. Glendale NY: Benchmark Publishing Co., 1970) pp. 615-616. 349 Elie A. F. LaValette to Bureau of Yards & Docks, 29 May 1861, transcription at Sackets Harbor Battlefield Library. 350 Elie A. F. LaValette to Bureau of Yards & Docks, 4 August 1861, transcription at Sackets Harbor Battlefield Library.
104 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
In the fall of 1861, Secretary of State William H. Seward, in a letter to the governors of the northern states, recognized that the United States was particularly vulnerable on Lake Ontario. There, the British port of Kingston had a fine harbor protected by strong fortifications while the defenses of Sackets Harbor and Oswego had fallen into decay. Seward did note that:
At Sackett’s Harbor we have on the stocks and under cover an eighty gun ship, of which, until very recently, the brave but misguided Tatnall was commander. The ship is still sound, except in a few parts, and a recent examination of her by competent persons, has resulted in the adoption of the opinion, that she can be set afloat, ready for service, in ninety days. In addition to this, it is believed that she can be turned into a propeller with entire success, and thus be made a floating fort, which would, in case of war, secure us the command of the lake, and enable us to prevent the construction of a rival fleet, and destroy, if necessary, the forts on the Canadian shore. This, then, is a method of securing our shores on Lake Ontario — at once practicable, economical, and decisive.351
The area’s newspapers took up the matter and reprinted a portion of Seward’s proposal.352 There is no record, however, that the navy department ever took any action on that idea. Such action would violate the terms of the 1817 Rush-Bagot agreement, but both the United States and Great Britain already had or were planning to have armed vessels on the Great Lakes well in excess of those allowed by that agreement.
Two months later, with both the Union and Confederate navies building ironclad warships on the Atlantic, a New York City newspaper suggested the New Orleans would make a good ironclad for use on Lake Erie:
As for the lakes, we have there already a seventy-four gun ship, of excellent model, suitable to turn into a screen, and if iron plated and armed with rifled guns, able to sweep Lake Erie of any fleet the British could how there in the next six months. - New York Evening Post
It did not take long for an Oswego newspaper to point out the obvious difficulty with this proposal:
We wish it would point out how it proposes to get that seventy-four gun ship from Sacketts Harbor into Lake Erie. Will the New Orleans go through the Welland Canal or up Niagara Falls? Perhaps, however, the Post proposes to carry it over land to Buffalo. - Oswego Times.353
351 Quoted in Richard F. Palmer, “The great warship that waited and waited and …,” Inland Seas, Vol. 40 (1984) pp.272-285. 352 Syracuse NY, Syracuse Journal, 11 November 1861. 353 Reprinted in the St. Catherines ON, St. Catherines Evening Journal, 2 January 1862.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 105
In any case no action was taken and the New Orleans remained undisturbed at Sackets Harbor throughout the war.
Although nothing was done to the New Orleans herself, the navy did ship 20, 9-inch Dahlgren smoothbore cannon to Sackets Harbor to have them ready in case they were needed to arm the New Orleans. A shed was built to house these guns where they remained until they were finally removed several decades later.
In August 1863, a group of British army officers, stationed at Toronto, took a month’s leave to circle the lake in the Canadian Thames Yacht Club’s sloop Breeze. During their trip they spent a few days at Sackets Harbor where they visited the New Orleans’ shiphouse. As one officer described it, they
Clambered up from deck to deck by flights of stairs & at last emerged in a small look out station on the top of the building, whence there was a rather fine view.
The “Big Ship House” in 1863 as drawn by the British visitors When we came down I carefully stuck my knife into occasional timbers & satisfied myself that she was not good for much. She is in fact rotting from old age.354
While the shiphouse remained in reasonable condition, by 1863 its occupant, the New Orleans, was likely beyond repair.
The shiphouse enclosing the New Orleans about 1865 with the lieutenant’s house in the foreground and the shipkeeper’s house to the left.
354 A Month’s Leave or the Cruise of the Breeze (1863), p.92, Henry Egerton Baines Fonds, LAC.
106 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
The shiphouse at Sackets Harbor enclosing the New Orleans, from across the harbor, about 1870. 1870-1883 – “LIKE A CORPSE IN STATE”
or most of its history, the New Orleans and its shiphouse served as a playhouse for the F children of the residents of Sackets Harbor. One such child was Susan Ford, the daughter of Sailing Master Augustus Ford, who was born and spent her childhood at Sackets Harbor. Many years later, and now married, she wrote a poem describing the activities of her youth:
THE OLD SHIP 355
Sometimes we played within the ship, that monster ship Orleans, We made a racecourse of its deck, and climbed along its beams. And oft we hid in darkest nooks, at hide-and-seek we played, Or through its port-holes thrust our heads, till old folks were dismayed. Sometimes we shouted in the ship, then stood with listening ear, The echoes from its hollow sides, in strange replies to hear. It seemed as if far down below, the spirits of old sailors bold, Had come from out their watery graves, and hidden in its darksome hold. And oft we stood with wondering eyes, and asked how it could be, That this ocean ship should stand on sticks, and not be off at sea!
Susan Ford Graham, April 11, 1881
355 From the archives of the Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site, Sackets Harbor NY.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 107
Throughout their existence, the New Orleans and her shiphouse impressed, even awed, both the residents and the numerous visitors to Sackets Harbor who visited the site and marveled at what they saw:
You enter the building on the level of the ground and find yourself immediately under the bow of the monster. You are obliged to strain your neck and eyes in looking up into the gloom, fifty feet or more to see the rail of the deck. You gaze with
profound emotion at the A poor quality photograph of the shiphouse at Sackets Harbor enclosing the gigantic mass and the New Orleans, taken about 1870. The observation cupola has disappeared. gigantic proportions of every part – the solid oaken keel eighteen inches thick, the stalwart stern and the equally stalwart stern-post; the six-inch planking, and the great bolts which fasten them to the frame. The whole effect is one of overpowering and resistless strength, yet the lines are graceful, and the proportions please the eye. Ascending by a staircase of several flights you reach the level of the deck. A few planks are laid for you to walk on, but otherwise the whole vast interior is open and is broken only by the huge 15-inch pine beams which cross the hull at frequent intervals. Another staircase takes you down into the interior of the ship, when you see the beams above you instead of below.356
Over the years, thousands of visitors took the time to climb to the observation cupola at the top of the shiphouse and many recorded their presence:
The life of the cupola was about forty years, and during that time probably 100,000 people visited it and carved their names upon it. Every conceivable spot upon it bore an autograph.357
By the early 1870s, the New Orleans had far outlasted the time when it could be of any possible use as a warship. Still, she remained intact inside her shiphouse, itself now showing clear signs of major decay. In 1873, the new commandant, Sailing Master Charles V. Morris, reported optimistically that the frame of the ship house was “sound” but he recommended that it be reshingled.358
356 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 16 July 1873. 357 Kingston ON, British Whig, 13 January 1880. 358 Charles V. Morris to Navy Department, 1 July 1873, Sackets Harbor Battlefield Library.
108 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
On 17 January 1876 Congress had its last chance to save the New Orleans. Representative George Augustus Bagley of Watertown, New York introduced a bill providing funds to repair and maintain the public property at Sackets Harbor, including the New Orleans and her shiphouse. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Naval Affairs and their report recommended passage because:
The Government has here a naval establishment comprising three and one-half acres of land, with a number of houses, a wharf, and also the hull of a ship of war of 3,200 tons on the stocks and covered by a ship-house erected for its preservation. All this property is rapidly deteriorating for want of a small appropriation to make necessary repairs.359
However, the bill did not pass and, once again, the New Orleans continued her slow decay.
One author, identified only as “O. D. K.,” lamented the New Orleans’ inevitable fate and compared her to the U. S. frigate Cumberland, sunk by the Confederate ironclad Virginia during the Civil War: THE NEW ORLEANS 360
(Suggested by a proposition to sell the naval property at Sackets Harbor) Sackets Harbor, Sept. 10, 1872 Old and rotten and worthless, now, Eluding the cumbersome “Southron’s” grip, No waters shall ever feel her prow To hold forever the good old ship, To cleave away her laughing sides, Would leave her record of moral worth, As over the foaming crest she rides. As everlasting as God’s green earth. They’ve kept here like a corpse in state, Then why should her unused life be sold, For carrions gaze and idle prate. For the common sin of growing old? To gather no halo around her name, Her keel was laid by the nation’s brave, And die unchristened, unknown to fame. To drive the foe from Ontario’s wave. The tooth of time is ever at work: Their hammers are still. The dip of their oars, The mold and worm in her vitals lurk. Has fled from Ontario’s shelving shores, The hulk that our fathers had builded stout, And their old grey heads are pillowed too low, Has sat on her haunches and rusted out. To heed Ontario’s ebb and flow. She has stood aloof from the water’s soak, Their staunch old craft has stood on her “ways,” And out lived the age of her heart of oak; The treasured relic of troublous days — In the ponderous clutches of iron mail, Till they have finished their ground-work here, Her wooden walls are as eggshells frail. And gone to build in a brighter sphere. And yet to go like the “Cumberland” down, Then let her abide as the nation’s guest, Unscrewed by the “Merrimac’s” ugly frown, Till she rots to Ontario’s heaving breast, Her last gun fired from under the wave, When the winds and waves in frolic and gust, And her proud flag flying above he grave. Will bear to their secret caves, her dust! — O.D.K., in the Brookfield Courier.
359 Repair and Preservation of Public Property at Sacket’s Harbor, N.Y., 16 February 1876, H.Rep 95, 44th Congress, 1st Session. 360 Adams NY, Jefferson County Journal, 31 March 1880.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 109
Time, however, was taking its toll. With the Navy Department unwilling to spend any further money maintaining the now rotting shiphouse it would be only a matter of time before the harsh gales of winter would begin the process of involuntary demolition. That process started on 17 September 1879 when about 15 square feet of the shiphouse’s roof was ripped off in a gale.361 Another gale on December 22 did far more damage, as the area’s newspapers reported:
The southwest corner of the old ship-house at Sacket's Harbor fell in the other day with a terrible crash. The building is so rotten and weak now that no one dare venture inside of it.362
The old ship-house at Sackets Harbor will soon be in ruins. During a recent gale the west side was blown in, and no one dare venture inside as the remainder of the building is liable to fall at any time.363
The reaction of the local citizens was one of a forthcoming opportunity to celebrate the New Orleans, its shiphouse, and their 65 years as residents of Sackets Harbor:
The old ship-house at Sacket’s Harbor is beginning to cave in. Prop it up until next summer arrives and then let’s burn it.364
Two enterprising Watertown men conceived of a way to profit from the rapidly decaying structure. They proposed purchasing the property from the navy for what they thought would be a nominal sum, then charter all the steamboats and special trains to Sackets Harbor for a day the following summer. In addition, they would lease the Earle and Everleigh Houses, two local hotels, and all the unoccupied buildings at Madison Barracks to house the expected crowd. They would then sell tickets and, that night, set the shiphouse and the New Orleans on fire.365 Fortunately for the village, this plan was never executed as such a large fire could have easily spread to buildings around the harbor.
Before the damage to the shiphouse could be repaired, or props applied, Mother Nature decreed a different fate:
The old ship-house at Sacket’s succumbed to the gale yesterday, and the entire monster wreck is all ready to be touched off by anyone who wants to see a fine bonfire.366
361 Watertown NY. Watertown Daily Times, 24 September 1879. 362 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 28 December 1879. 363 Adams NY, Jefferson County Journal, 14 January 1880. 364 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 2 February 1880. 365 Kingston ON, British Whig, 13 January 1880, citing an article in the Watertown Daily Times. 366 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 19 February 1880; similar report the same day in the New York NY, New York Daily World and on 25 February 1880 in the Antwerp NY, Antwerp Gazette.
110 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Most of the shiphouse now lay on the ground, surrounding the still intact hull of the New Orleans propped up on Navy Point. Only a small portion of the roof of the shiphouse remained visible where it fell on top of the hull. For the first time since the fall of 1815 the New Orleans was in the open air and visible to anyone who cared to look at it. The sight
was impressive and several The often printed photograph of the New Orleans about 1881 with the artists and even a remains of the shiphouse roof on the bow of the vessel. photographer or two recorded its appearance. These photographs in particular are the only time a warship was accurately pictured at it appeared while under construction during the War of 1812.
In early 1883 the Navy Department prepared a list of vessels they considered too old or in too poor condition to be worthy of retaining. One of these was the New Orleans at Sackets Harbor. In a letter to Congress the department Painting of Sackets Harbor and the New Orleans about 1881 recommended that these Madison Barracks is in the right background. 45 vessels be sold.367
“An Old Ship Doomed” — The secretary of the navy has sent a communication to the speaker of the house, reporting the list of vessels stricken from the navy register under a late act of congress,
367 Letter from the secretary of the navy to Congress, Ex. Doc. No. 66, 47th Congress, 2nd Session, 1 February 1883.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 111
with a recommendation that the vessels be broken up or sold at auction. Among those recommended to be sold is the famous old ship at Sackets Harbor.368
On 21 June 1883, the Navy Department advertised for bids on these vessels in newspapers across the United States.369 On 24 September 1883 those bids were opened at Washington. There was only one bid received for the New Orleans from Syracuse banker Alfred Wilkinson. He offered $427.50, more than the vessel’s appraised value of $200.00 and his bid was accepted.370 Shortly thereafter Wilkinson wrote to the shipkeeper at Sackets Harbor, Alfred H. Metcalf, informing Metcalf that he had purchased the New Orleans and that he was sending John Hemans to supervise “cutting her up.”371
368 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 3 February 1883; Adams NY, Jefferson County Journal, 21 February 1883. 369 New York NY, New York Times, 24 September 1883. 370 Letter from the secretary of the navy to Congress, Ex. Doc. No. 170, 48th Congress, 1st Session, 14 June 1884; New York NY, New York Times, 25 September 1883; Antwerp NY, The Antwerp Gazette, 3 October 1883. 371 Alfred Wilkinson to Alfred Metcalf, 7 November 1883, from the archives of the Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site, Sackets Harbor NY.
112 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
1883-1884 – “CUTTING HER UP”
ohn Hemans, who had been employed at the “wrecking station” at Mexico Point, south of J Sackets Harbor, lost little time in arriving and hiring a dozen men to begin the task of breaking her up.372 As the Watertown Daily Times reported:
The party who bought it at the late sale commenced Monday to tear it down. It is said that many of the timbers are perfectly solid and very valuable, being the best of pine. It would seem as though the village of Sacket’s missed it in not buying and keeping it simply as a relic of our late war with Great Britain.373
The newspaper had a point but it was made much too late. The time when the Village of Sackets Harbor should have offered to purchase the New Orleans was now over a decade in the past. With the shiphouse no longer protecting the hull it would only be a short time before the ship would succumb to the battering of high winds and winter ice and collapse. While a $500.00 bid would have secured the vessel, her preservation would have required that the village rebuild the shiphouse. That cost was easily ten times that spent by the Navy Department in 1815 to build the original, much too great a sum for the small village to afford.
A question then arose regarding the debris of the old ship house lying around and under the New Orleans herself. Was that part of what Wilkinson purchased? On 9 November, Shipkeeper Metcalf asked the Navy Department and they agreed that those remains were of little value and could be given to Wilkinson at no charge.374
Throughout December 1883 and January 1884 Hemans and his crew worked steadily on the project. After removing the remains of the shiphouse they began to break apart the hull. In those days safety was not a major concern and the men took great risks every day. The danger, however, did not go unnoticed. On 8 February 1884 one man, “an old and experienced captain,“ warned the that the New Orleans was now “in an unsafe condition and he [Hemans] should use precautions to preserve the lives of his workmen” but nothing was done. 375
The next morning this lack of concern had a fatal result for 31-year old John Oates. A few days later the Jefferson County Journal published the details of what happened:
372 Syracuse NY, Syracuse Standard, 24 March 1884. 373 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 21 November 1883. 374 Edward T. Nichols to Albert H. Metcalf, 12 November 1883, NAUS, RG71, Yards & Docks entry 1, Letters Sent. 375 Adams NY, Jefferson County Journal, 13 February 1884.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 113
The workmen went to work as usual this morning, but a number of them expressed a fear that it was unsafe, as it was found upon examination that she had slipped back upon her blockings about four inches during the night, but others laughed away their fears and the work progressed safely until about half past ten o’clock. They were engaged in sawing off a section of the ship when a crashing was heard and she began to slide back, she kept on until she had moved about ten feet; when she broke, falling and carrying the men who were at work on her down with her. The falling timbers struck one of the workmen, H. Godfrey, and threw him over and over, strange to say, with but little injury. Another, E. Jeffrey, who was on a ladder when the alarm was given, tried to come down and got partly down when he fell about fifteen feet and was caught in such a manner that the beams covered without touching him. He escaped with a severe blow on the head which dazed him. He walked across the ice for a short distance to his home, but had no remembrance of anything that had transpired for some little time, but at the present writing is better. Mr. Emmons, one of the owners, was at work with Mr. Godfrey, a young man by the name of Oats and a young man by the name of Hess. When Hess felt the jar before she started, he ran and jumped, escaping with but slight bruises, Mr. Emmons and Oats fell with the ship, Mr. E. is badly hurt, was at first some were fearful that his injuries would prove fatal, but he is
more comfortable now and his recovery is hopeful. John Oats, aged John Oates’ repaired tombstone in Lakeside 29 years [his tombstone records 31 years], an unmarried man, was Cemetery, Sackets Harbor killed. One of the falling timbers containing a square two-inch bolt, fell across the body piercing the bowels and coming out the back, and a large spike was driven into his head, death was instantaneous.376
Unlike in later years, when such an accident would have led to an immediate suspension of work on the ship and to numerous claims for compensation, the conclusion at the time was that
No blame is attached to any one, but all of the men had a very narrow escape. The work of demolition was resumed this afternoon.377
John Oates’s parents lived in Watertown so his family was quickly notified. The New Orleans’ owner, Alfred Wilkinson, on hearing of the tragedy, telegraphed from Syracuse that he would defray all the expenses involved in Oates’ funeral.378 Oates was buried in Lakeside Cemetery at Sackets Harbor.
376 Adams NY, Jefferson County Journal, 13 February 1884. 377 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 9 February 1884 378 Adams NY, Jefferson County Journal, 13 February 1884.
114 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
As the demolition progressed, some speculated on how much profit Wilkinson was likely to receive from the sale of the material salvaged from the ship and shiphouse. The Jefferson County Journal gave its readers what it believed were the facts:
The house which covered the ship was entirely covered with shingles, roofs, sides and ends, which were well painted. They were all packed into bundles and sold, bringing first class price. The poorest portion of the timbers were converted into stove wood and sold readily for ten and twelve shillings per cord. The iron is the best quality Swedish iron, and as it has not been exposed to the weather, is very valuable. It is to be converted into steel. There will be about 80 tons of it, which I believe is already sold at 5½ cts. per pound. There is considerable red cedar which is to be made into lead pencils, and other valuable timber to be used for various purposes. It is much sought after because of its associations and brings good prices. $450 was paid for the ship and house and they expect to realize $10,000 or $12,000.379
Curious as to the veracity of these details, the Syracuse Standard asked owner Alfred Wilkinson about the article and printed his answer which gave a much more realistic picture of the possible profit in the venture:
Profits on the sale of the materials will not be more than $2,000 or $2,500. There were 30,000 shingles in the house, which were sold at about $2.50 per bunch. We shall have about fifty tons of iron, which will bring probably $30 a ton, and eighteen cords of red cedar, worth $12 or $15 a cord. Also a large amount of fire wood and old iron. It will cost something for the work of demolition. If any one can figure out $10,000 profit from this, I should be pleased to hear from him.380
By the end of March 1884 demolition was almost complete and “people wishing pieces of her for relics had better come soon, as they will be through in a few days.”381 By early May it was all over and the “lumber ready to ship on receipt of orders.”382 For the first time since before the War of 1812, Navy Point was empty.
379 Adams NY, Jefferson County Journal, 12 March 1884. 380 Syracuse NY, Syracuse Standard, 24 March 1884. 381 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 20 March 1884. 382 Pulaski NY, Pulaski Democrat, 8 May 1884.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 115
THE NEW ORLEANS LIVES ON
or more than a decade after her demolition, wood salvaged from the New Orleans was used F by area artisans to manufacture a wide variety of objects ranging from small inches-square souvenirs to large pieces of furniture.
In July 1886 the new G. W. Simons post no. 609 of the Grand Army of the Republic at Pulaski, New York, was presented with a wooden gavel made from the New Orleans.383 Four years later M. H. Jacobs presented Syracuse University with a “piece of white oak” taken from the New Orleans’ hull.384 In 1891, Dr. J. T. Newell of Ogdensburg crafted a canoe paddle from the wood of the New Cabinet at Jefferson County Historical Society, Watertown NY, made from wood taken from the New Orleans. Orleans. “The Doctor guards the relic Photograph by the author. very carefully and it is to be used only on state occasions.”385
The profit potential of mementos made from the wood of the New Orleans was not overlooked. The E. A. Newell & Co. of Ogdensburg NY advertised canes for sale: “They are the genuine Simon pure article. You cannot allow this important turning point in our national history to be forgotten. Come and Get One.”386
Other material from the New Orleans found a variety of uses by citizens and businesses in the vicinity of Sackets Harbor. In 1930, the Watertown Daily Times described some of these uses:
Some of the shingles on the old ship house were repacked and sold. Much of both the ship and ship house seem to have been sold Chair at Jefferson County Historical Society, Watertown NY, made from New Orleans wood. Photograph by the author
383 Pulaski NY, Pulaski Democrat, 29 [possibly 20] July 1886. 384 Syracuse NY, Syracuse Standard, 25 May 1890. 385 Ogdensburg NY, The Republican, 9 September 1891. 386 Ogdensburg NY, St. Lawrence Republican, 3 August 1887.
116 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
locally for firewood, cords and cords of it, the villagers going after it and paying an average of about $1.00 a load. Thomas Whalen bought some of the oak for firewood and his son, Charles, had Henry Crapo make a boot-jack out of a piece of it for a souvenir.
John Francis whose work shop was where James Hamble lives now made a great many souvenirs seemingly specializing in canes though we can trace only one at the present time. It is owned by J. R. Jones of 872 State street, Carthage, and is made of white oak, cedar and lignum vitae. Mr. Francis took his cane making seriously and more often than not made them in patterns using different kinds of wood. He also had Charles Whalen, a local blacksmith, cut some of the iron spikes for cane heads. One spike made about three heads. Many of these cane heads were forged by W. L. McKee in his foundry, also, Mr. McKee, himself, used some of the old ship for firewood and made many souvenirs from the best pieces, a chair, clothesbars, books shelves, brackets, etc.
Jay Matteson’s father bought some of the old ship to put into the buildings on his farm at Camps Mills and Samuel Resseguie bought 8 by 8 inch oak for sills for his house. … Mr. Resseguie also bought Rocking chair at Pickering- oak framing for the addition on his barn. Some of it is 30 feet by 24 Beach Museum at Sackets inches by 8 inches oak and some is 30 feet by 10 inches by 4 inches Harbor, made from New Orleans wood. Photograph by the author and was what the ship was planked with on the bottom. The deck beams of pine two feet square were the full width of the ship. Some of the pine that was in the ship house, 4 inches by 6 inches, is used for girts in this same barn. Mr. Resseguie bought the lumber at $8.00 per thousand and so far as we are able to find has the largest individual amount of lumber from the old ship. It was all sawed by a whip saw and cut lengthwise. The nail holes in it are about one inch square. They were, perhaps of iron originally turned out by a blacksmith, as used for wooden pegs would have been sawed right through without being removed.
A great deal of oak in the ship was sawed up for flooring in George Hoover’s saw-mill in Dexter. Mr. Hemans became a local resident and ran the first roller skating rink in the village in the old Samuel Whitely flour mill which stood where the old sheds belonging to the Ontario Stock farm now stand. Some of the oak flooring was used there.387
Relics from the New Orleans remain a part of private collections as well as those of various museums located throughout Northern New York. Canes, chairs and furniture can be seen, by
387 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 29 January 1930.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 117 appointment, at the Jefferson County Historical Society in Watertown and at the Pickering-Beach Museum at Sackets Harbor.
It was not only craft items that continued to remind the residents of Sackets Harbor and vicinity of the New Orleans. Occasionally artifacts from the war years turned up unexpectedly. One such appeared in 1890 in a nearby cedar swamp.
Cane and small wooden souvenir made from wood taken from the New Orleans. Private collection. Photograph by the author.
It was an axe of ancient manufacture on which was stamped the letters U. S. As timber was cut in the swamp for the ship New Orleans, begun and nearly finished at Sackets Harbor during the war of 1812, it is supposed that the axe was left there at that time.388
By the turn of the 20th century Navy Point, where the New Orleans and her shiphouse had been for so many decades, was empty save for weeds, shrubs and a number of trees. Except for the occasional mention in the newspapers when something happened to remind them of the existence of that huge vessel, daily memory of the New Orleans’ existence faded away.
In the summer of 1929, New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt visited Sackets Harbor. A local resident, Charles Colton, presented the governor with a cane made from the wood from the New Orleans. Roosevelt later wrote to Colton asking for more information, and Colton replied:
I am delighted with your interest in the history of the cane made from the frigate New Orleans and all things pertaining to the naval history of Sackets Harbor. Elliott Roat of Pillar Point made your cane out of oak from the old ship for his brother George Roat. Mr. Roat was a carpenter and boat builder. I do not know how much of the lumber he had or may have made into souvenirs. George Roat moved to Sackets Harbor in later years and shortly before his death he gave this case to a blind friend, James Daly, who still lives here. Mr. Daly found a cane he could hang upon his arm better suited to his convenience so he gave the cane to me. When I heard you were coming to Sackets Harbor I decided to give the cane to you because I wanted someone to have it who deserves it and would appreciate it .It is regrettable that so much of the interesting history is becoming more folklore than fact. I followed the threshing business for 18 years and two feeding pinds for the
388 Ogdensburg NY, The Republican, 16 January 1890.
118 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
threshing machine were made of iron from the old ship. Very likely it was put to hundreds of prosaic uses in that day that would be of romantic interest now.389
In early 1884, while Hemans was busy breaking up the New Orleans, some consideration was given in Washington to closing the naval station at Sackets Harbor. The Navy Department, however, recommended that the station be retained.
The great importance of the naval operations on the lakes during the war of 1812, the exposed condition of our frontier, and the enormous amount of property on these waters belonging to our citizens, and therefore liable to destruction in the event of war, admonish your commissioners not to recommend the abandonment of the only naval station — whatever its demerits — we now hold in that quarter.390
Later the naval station was used by the New York State Naval Militia.391 Finally, in the 1950s, Navy Point was sold to private developers and became Navy Point Marina. In the 1960s the remaining part of the navy yard was turned over to the State of New York where it is now part of the Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site.
389 Watertown NY, Watertown Daily Times, 29 January 1930. 390 Adams NY, Jefferson County Journal, 9 January 1884. 391 “The yard is now rented to the state for the use of the Naval Militia and the United States Naval Reserve Forces for the nominal sum of $1 a year.” Cape Vincent NY, Cape Vincent Eagle, 20 November 1919.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 119
BILL OF MATERIALS FOR THREE SHIPS OF THE LINE
ables 19, 20 and 21 describe the materials needed to construct three ships of the line as T presented by Isaac Chauncey to Secretary Jones in November 1814. While Jones requested three 94-gun vessels, Chauncey detailed the materials for three mounting 100 guns. The difference in quantity between one of these vessels and the 106-gun New Orleans and Chippewa is not significant so the materials required for either can be obtained by dividing these quantities by three. The frigate would require smaller amounts of many of these materials.
Table 19 - Estimate of materials and stores required to be sent from the Atlantic ports to build and equip three ships of the line to mount 100 guns on three decks392
Amount Item Amount Item 96 32-pound long guns (34 per ship) 200 Rockets 102 24-pound long guns (36 per ship) 200 Blue lights 102 42-pound carronades (36 per ship) 20 boxes Spermaceti candles 9,000 32-pound round shot 30 reams Cartridge paper 4,500 32-pound grape shot 134,400 pounds Good junk for wads 200 32-pound double head shot Six Anchors from 70 to 73 cwt 9,600 24-pound round shot Three Anchors from 18 to 20 cwt 4,800 24-pound grape shot Six Anchors from 9 to 12 cwt 200 24-pound double head shot Three Anchors from 7 to 9 cwt 9,600 42-pound round shot Six American ensigns 4,800 42-pound grape shot Six American jacks 400 42-pound canister shot Six American pendants 300 Cannon locks 550 yards Blue bunting \ To be of the 100 Carronade locks 410 yards Red bunting | broad kind to 300 Muskets 500 yards White bunting | make signals 300 Pistols 280 yards Yellow bunting / 600 Cutlasses 18 Silver boatswains calls 600 Boarding pikes without staffs 6 dozen Marline spikes 300 Musket cartridge boxes 20 dozen Scrapers 600 pounds Musket balls Three Large gallies 500 pounds Pistol balls Three Ships bells 500 pounds Buck shot Nine Brass compasses 1000 Cannon flints Nine Wood compasses 500 Musket flints Three Hanging compasses 500 Pistol flints 12 Spy glasses 148,500 pounds Cannon powder (75 rounds per gun) Three Night glasses 9,000 pounds Musket priming powder 18 Half-hour glasses 6,500 yards Flannel or substitute to make cylinders Six 28 second glasses 20 pounds Thread Six 14 second glasses 200 Dressed sheep skins for sponges 600 tons Iron ballast 50,000 Tacks 20 dozen Log lines 3,000 pounds Match rope Three Deep sea lines
392 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #195, 8 November 1814, CLB 6.
120 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Amount Item Amount Item 500 fathoms 10 inch rope fine yarns for breechings 18 Hand lines 500 fathoms 9 inch rope fine yarns for breechings Three Deep sea leads 500 fathoms 8 inch rope fine yarns for breechings 18 Hand leads 150 Battle lanterns 200 fathoms 5 inch white rope fine yarns best hemp for wheel rope 30 Signal lanterns 15 Speaking trumpets 12 Tin lanterns Ten coils Signal halyards 350 Powder horns 60 yards Baize 1500 sheets Copper to copper magazine Two rolls Sheet lead 1500 pounds Copper nails 50 barrels Tar 9 Magazine lanterns 10 barrels Varnish 20 Patent lights or reflectors 4000 pounds White lead 3 Copper adzes 1000 pounds Black paint 3 Copper drivers 500 pounds Lamp black 3 Copper measures 32 pound 20 dozen Paint brushes 3 Copper measures 24 pound Three barrels Spirits of turpentine 3 Copper measures 42 pound 20 pounds Letherage Three Copper funnels 300 sheets Sand paper Three Copper snuffers 300 pounds Putty 450 Priming wires Six dozen Pad locks 15 Worms for 32-pdrs Three sets Weights and measures 15 Ladles for 32-pdrs Three sets Carpenters tools complete 15 Worms for 24-pdrs Three sets Coopers tools complete 15 Ladles for 24-pdrs Three small sets Armourers tools 15 Worms for 42-pdrs 100 dozen Thimbles assorted 15 Ladles for 42-pdrs 100 dozen Hooks & thimbles assorted 30,000 Common quills for tubes 2,000 Hammocks 200 Copper hoops for pouch barrels 2,000 Hammock bags 15 coils Hambro line 4,480 pounds 4-yarn spun yard 15 coils House line 4.480 pounds 3-yarn spun yarn 10 coils Marline 2,240 pounds 2-yarn spun yarn 20 coils Seizing stuff 360 Tube boxes 100 Male & female elevating screws for Canvas, twine & bolt rope carronades if that number of sufficient to make a complete suit carronades are sent of sails for each ship 200 Port fires Hammock clothes, tarpaulins, wind-sails, mast coats, sick cots Crow bars, handspikes, rammers and sponge heads, spikes and mallets, match staffs, pike staffs, fire buckets, passing boxes &c &c can be made here by mechanics from the fleet.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 121
Table 20 – Cordage required for three ships of 100 guns 393
Weight Amount Item (pounds) 18 Cables, 24-inch, 120 fathoms 290,304 Three Stream cables, 14-inch, 120 fathoms 16,464 Six Hawsers, 9-inch, 120 fathoms 13,608 Six Hawsers, 7-inch, 120 fathoms 8,232 Three Fore stays, 18-inch, 21 fathoms, 4 strand 4,704 Three Fore preventer stays, 12-inch, 21 fathoms, 4-strand 2,128 Three Fore top mast stays, 9-inch, 30 fathoms, 4-strand 1,680 Three Fore top mast S. stays, 8-inch, 30 fathoms, 4-strand 1,568 Three Main stays, 19-inch, 30 fathoms, 4-strand 7,616 Three Main preventer stays, 13-inch, 30 fathoms, 4-strand 3,360 Three Main top mast stay, 10-inch, 32 fathoms, 4-strand 2,128 Three Main top mast S. stay, 7½-inch, 31 fathoms, 4-strand 1,652 Three Mizzen stays, 9½-inch, 20 fathoms, 4-strand 1,344 Three Mizzen L. stays, 6-inch, 25 fathoms, 4-strand 672 1,700 fathoms 11 inch rope cable for fore & main shroud 47,936 450 fathoms 8½ inch rope cable for mizzen shroud 8,960 200 fathoms 14 inch rope cable for messengers 9,184 180 fathoms 10 inch hawser laid 4,200 360 fathoms 9½ inch hawser laid 7,280 360 fathoms 9 inch hawser laid 6,916 360 fathoms 8½ inch hawser laid 6,720 3,000 fathoms 8 inch hawser laid 44,800 1.350 fathoms 7½ inch hawser laid 19,712 2.100 fathoms 7 inch hawser laid 22,848 600 fathoms 6½ inch hawser laid 6,720 1.050 fathoms 6 inch hawser laid 8,960 1.500 fathoms 5½ inch hawser laid 12,096 3.000 fathoms 5 inch hawser laid 17,472 4.800 fathoms 4½ inch hawser laid 26,880 7.200 fathoms 4 inch hawser laid 26,880 15,900 fathoms 3½ inch hawser laid 44,800 10,800 fathoms 3 inch hawser laid 24,976 11,400 fathoms 2½ inch hawser laid 16,464 9600 fathoms 2-inch rope 8,960 10,500 fathoms 1½-inch rope 8,512 7,500 fathoms 1-inch rope 3,024 Spun yarn 11,200 Breeching stuff 28,560 TOTAL 779,520
393 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #195, 8 November 1814, CLB 6.
122 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Table 21 – Articles which will most likely be required by the mechanics The quantity most probably will require to be varied 394
Amount Item Amount Item 300 tons Iron bolt and bar Ten barrels Paint Oil 40 tons Iron spikes of various sizes 3,000 pounds White lead 5,000 pounds Nails cut and wrought assorted 1,000 pounds Black paint 1,000 pounds Boat nails 200 pounds Lamp black 12 tons Lignum Vitae assorted Six dozen Paint brushes 2,000 ??gs with rivets 50 pounds Thumbs 2,000 Steel Pins to suit with rivets 300 pounds Putty 18 Pewter pump chambers 12 tons Oakum prepared in bales 12 Hause leads 60 dozen Augurs 90 Scupper leads 10 dozen Flat files assorted Six rolls Sheet lead 200 pounds Best steel 200 barrels Pitch 16 Anvils 50 barrels Tar Twelve Smiths bellows 50 barrels Rosin One Set block maker’s tools Ten barrels Varnish One Set of machinery & tools for a rope walk Five barrels Fish Oil Barrels of tar sufficient for 200 tons of rope
394 Isaac Chauncey to William Jones #195, 8 November 1814, CLB 6.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 123
THE ROPE WALK
rope walk is a long, low building where strands of twine, usually hemp, were twisted A together to make the lengthy ropes and cables used on board ship, primarily for rigging and as anchor cables. The largest cables would be over 16 inches in diameter and weigh many tons.
On 20 November 1814, Navy Secretary William Jones informed the New York navy agent, Dr. John Bullus, that a rope walk must be built at Sackets Harbor and “all the rope over eight inches will be made at that place.”395 Bullus replied five days later informing Jones that he expected to “succeed in procuring the machinery and implements for the rope walk” in time to meet Jones’ schedule.396 Left undecided was where to build the rope walk. The most convenient spot was near Sackets Harbor along the shore of Black River Bay, adjacent to the naval hospital built in 1814. That land, however, was owned by Sackets Harbor residents Samuel and Sarah Luff.
In late December, Commodore Chauncey, while at New York City, ordered Purser William M. Sands to return to Sackets Harbor and to
r Immediately ascertain whether M Luff will sell his land between the hospital and Mill Creek
— if he will you will purchase on the best terms you can for a rope walk [and] you will immediately contract for boards sufficient to build a rope walk and other necessary buildings. I directed Mr Eagle to purchase all the boards and brick that he could.397
Chauncey also ordered Captain Jacob Jones, left in command at Sackets Harbor, to have everything ready to start construction “as soon as Mr Sands obtains a site for a rope walk.”398 Trying to address
every possibility, the commodore The rope walk at the Charlestown (Boston) Navy Yard. The one Jones had in mind was a much simpler wooden structure. notified Eckford’s foreman, Henry
395 William Jones to John Bullus, 20 November 1814, WJP. 396 William Jones to John Bullus, 28 November 1814, SNPLB, pp.213-215. 397 Isaac Chauncey to William R. Sands, 23 December 1814, CLB 6. 398 Isaac Chauncey to Jacob Jones, 23 December 1814, CLB 6.
124 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
Eagle, that if he used the boards purchased for the rope walk to expedite shipbuilding “they must be returned in time for our purpose.”399
Sands’ negotiations with the Luffs were successful and, to expedite matters, Chauncey himself purchased three acres of land along the shore of Black River Bay for $350.00.400 The agreement retained a twenty foot right of way to allow Luff access to his grist mill along Mill Creek. Chauncey later transferred ownership of this parcel to the Navy Department for what he paid for it.401
By early February 1815, construction of the rope walk was well underway. On 12 February Chauncey informed Utica NY contractor Henry Kip that the “rope walk will be in operation in the
Detail from a British intelligence map c.1816. This is the only known map showing both the rope walk and the naval hospital. LAC NMC-7637. course of two or three days” and there was now no need to manufacture cordage at Utica. Furthermore, Navy Agent Bullus purchased fifty tons of “tarred yarns” and most of the hemp required had already arrived at Sackets Harbor.402
399 Isaac Chauncey to William R. Sands, 23 December 1814, CLB 6. 400 Deed dated 10 March 1815 and recorded at the Jefferson County Clerk’s office, Watertown NY on 30 May 1815, Liber G-258. This parcel is adjacent to the one Chauncey purchased from Luff in May 1814 for the naval hospital, Liber G-125. 401 Deed dated 10 March 1815 and recorded 3 July 1815, Liber G-328. 402 Isaac Chauncey to Henry Kip, 12 February 1815, CLB 6.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 125
In his haste to provide the necessary materials to build the rope walk, Navy Agent Bullus did not exercise as much care as he should have. The rope making machinery and materials in particular were not of high quality, as Chauncey informed Bullus in March:
I think it right to inform you of the imposition practiced upon us by the person who sold you the rope walk machinery, for which purpose I inclose you the copy of a letter from Mr
Howland upon the subject — most of the articles complained of I have examined myself and think them worse than represented by Mr Howland the tackles particularly which are charged $40 are certainly not worth as many shillings.403
Nevertheless, the rope walk was in full operation by the end of February 1815 when word of the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, reached Sackets Harbor. While the total cost of the rope walk is not known, Table 22 details the vouchers paid by Commodore Chauncey at Sackets Harbor.
Table 22 – Payments for Building the Rope Walk at Sackets Harbor 404
Date Paid to Description Amount 1815.02.28 Patrick O’Coor Building chimney & setting tar kettle in tar house $10.50 1815.03.01 Joshua Culver Team work drawing tar, hemp & yarns from Navy Point 19 days $95.00 1815.03.01 Joshua Culver Team work drawing timber 7 days $35.00 1815.03.03 Andrew Chambers Building per contract $900.00 1815.03.09 Titus Simmons Shingles $48.00 1815.05.11 Abraham Van Santford Nails $290.75 1815.07.02 N. Howland Expenses building rope walk &c. $4,990.37 TOTAL $6,369.62
In addition to the shipbuilders, the men operating the rope walk were also affected by the news of peace. On 3 March Chauncey informed Navy Secretary Crowninshield that
The last of the mechanics left here on the 2d inst except the master rope maker with six men
who I have detained until I hear from the Department — we have about twenty spinners at
work daily fourteen of whom belong to the fleet — these men would very soon spin all the hemp into yarn in which state it could either be transported or laid into cordage as the Department might deem most advisable.405
As the rope walk remained in full operation, Crowninshield instructed Chauncey
403 Isaac Chauncey to John Bullus, 15 March 1815, CLB 6. 404 Settled Accounts, Alphabetic Series, Chauncey. This does not include the cost of the rope-making machinery, which was paid for by New York Navy Agent John Bullus. 405 Isaac Chauncey to Benjamin W. Crowninshield, 4 March 1815, SNLRC 1815 vol 2 item 7, M125 roll 43.
126 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
That you had better proceed and lay up all the hemp and yarns into cordage of suitable sizes for naval purposes, and have it done up securely for transportation to New York.406
A month later this work was well underway.407 In June, with the work still incomplete, Chauncey recommended that all the manufactured cordage be removed from the rope walk “and placed on board of one of the ships for security.”408 If this was done, there is no record of it. At the end of June, Chauncey reported to the Navy Commissioners:
Of the cordage there will be in the course of a month about 150 tons — about 75 tons of this
cordage was spun and laid here and is the best parcel of cordage I have seen for many years 409 — about 45 Tons has and will be laid here from yarns sent from New York.
By August, shiploads of new cordage were on their way to Oswego by schooner to be forwarded to the navy yard at New York City.410 As late as the end of September 1815, the navy kept ten men busy at the rope walk manufacturing cordage.411 It is not known how long this work continued but it was likely finished before the end of 1815. After shipping all the manufactured cordage to New York City, the rope walk building was used to store the cannon and carronades remaining at Sackets Harbor.412 In 1819 the lot itself, exclusive of the rope walk structure, was valued at $100 per acre, about what the navy paid for it four years earlier.413 By 1825, when the remaining cannon at Sackets Harbor were sent to New York City and without receiving any maintenance, the rope walk structure was in ruins. Today nothing remains.
406 Benjamin W. Crowninshield to Isaac Chauncey, 9 March 1815, SNLSO vol 12 p.52 roll 12. 407 Circular to Pursers, 15 April 1815, CLB 7 p.70. 408 Isaac Chauncey to Melancthon T. Woolsey, 26 June 1815, CLB 7 p.94. 409 Isaac Chauncey to Navy Commissioners, 30 June 1815, NAUS RG 45 film T829 roll 287 pp.25-26. 410 Melancthon T. Woolsey to Navy Commissioners, 8 August 1815, NCLRC entry 220. 411 Melancthon T. Woolsey to John Rodgers, 23 September 1815, NCLRC entry 220. 412 Melancthon T. Woolsey to Smith Thompson, 18 October 1819, SNLRC 1819 vol 4 item 59, M125 roll 64. 413 Ibid.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 127
CONTRACT TO BUILD THE NEW ORLEANS AND
CHIPPEWA 414
rticles of agreement, entered into, made & concluded this fifteenth Day of December, one A thousand, eight hundred & fourteen between Henry Eckford & Adam Brown and Noah Brown of the City of New York Master Ship Builders of the one part & John Bullus Navy Agent of the United States of America at New York, acting for & on behalf of the said United States of the other part, as follows —
The said Henry Eckford & Adam & Noah Brown, for themselves, their heirs, executors & administrators, do covenant, promise & agree to & with the said Navy Agent that they the said Henry Eckford, & Adam & Noah Brown or their legal representatives shall & will build or cause to be built as is hereafter set forth, Two Ships of the line to carry from seventy four to one hundred guns each as Commodore Chauncey may direct, & one Frigate of the largest class for the use of the Said United States. Viz
Said vessels to be built at some proper place at Sackett’s Harbour or its vicinity in the State of New York under the direction of Commodore Isaac Chauncey or such other Naval Officer as may be appointed by the Navy Department —
The said Vessels are to be built of proper materials, & in a workmanlike manner and the said Henry Eckford & Adam & Noah Brown do hereby promise to use every exertion in their power to have the said vessels ready to be launched in the spring as early as the Ice will permit & if th possible by the 15 of May next — The said Henry Eckford, & Adam & Noah Brown are to furnish all the Timber & materials of wood for the Hull & Spars & are to finish the Carpenters, Caulkers, Joiners, Blockmakers & Blacksmiths work for the Hull & Spars the Blockmakers &
Blacksmiths work for the rigging & armament excluded — All the materials for building except timber & materials of wood to be furnished and transported by the Navy Department & that those articles shall if possible be delivered in due time by the Department on the spot; but it is understood that the said Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown are to furnish & transport all the timber & materials of wood for the Hull & Spars — The said Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown are to be at the expense of transporting to Sackett’s Harbour & back all the Workmen and their tools, which they shall employ in building the said Ships & to pay their board
414 NAUS, RG 45, Contracts, Book 2, pp.281-284.
128 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
& all other expenses attending them; but it is understood that the transportation of the workmen to be employed for the Rigging and armament is to be paid by the Navy Department —
The said Vessels while on the stocks are to be at the risk of the Navy Department.
It is declared by the Parties to these presents that no member of Congress is to be concerned directly or indirectly, or to have any interest or emolument whatever or any part of this Contract
— And the said John Bullus Navy Agent of the United States of America at new York acting for & on behalf of the said United States, doth covenant, promise & agree to & with the said Henry Eckford & Adam Brown & Noah Brown, their executors, administrators and assigns well & truly to pay them for the said Two Ships of the line & one Frigate of the largest class, Eighty dollars per ton — the tonnage to be determined by the following measurement viz taking the length of the ship from the fore part of the stem to the after part of the stern post at height Wing transom deducting three fifths of the extreme breadth of beam, the remainder is the Keel for Tonnage, then multiply by the Keel by the Extreme breadth of Beam & half breadth of Beam, divide that product by ninety five the quotient is the Tonnage —
The said Henry Eckford & Adam & Noah Brown are to receive & be paid the said sum of Eighty Dollars per ton for the Two Ships of the line agreeably to the above measurement in the following manner, one hundred thousand dollars to be paid to them or their legal representatives on their departure from New York for Sacketts Harbour, one hundred thousand Dollars on the 1st of February 1815, one hundred thousand Dollars on the 1st of March following, & the balance to be paid to them on the delivery of the said Two Ships of the line agreeably to this contract —
And the said Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown are to receive and be paid for the said Frigate of the largest class, the said sum of Eighty Dollars per ton agreeably to the before mentioned measurement, one quarter part when her keel is laid, one quarter part when her Frame is raised, one quarter part when her lower deck beams are in, & the remaining one fourth part when launched & delivered agreeably to this contract —
In witness whereof the Parties aforesaid have hereunto set their hands & seals the day & year first herein mentioned.
Signed, sealed & delivered Henry Eckford
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 129
Whereas, Henry Eckford and Adam & Noah Brown, have this day entered into an agreement with John Bullus Navy Agent of the United States at New York to Build for account & for the use of the United States, Two Ships of the line, to carry each from seventy four to one hundred guns each, & one Frigate of Forty four guns agreeably to annexed instrument of writing, & security being demanded from them, for the faithful performance of their contract. —
Therefore know all men by these presents, that we Henry Eckford, Adam Brown & Noah Brown of the City of New York Master Ship Builders, Frederick Jenkins & John F Delaplane are held & firmly bound unto John Bullus Navy Agent of the United States at New York, in the penal sum of Two hundred thousand Dollars, to be paid to the Said United States, for the payment of which sum, well & truly to be made, we bind ourselves & each of us, our & each of our Heirs, Executors and Administrators, jointly & severally firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals,
& dated this fifteenth day of December one thousand eight hundred & fourteen —
The Conditions of this obligation is such, that if the above bounden Henry Eckford, & Adam & Noah Brown shall & do, in & by all things well & truly, observe, perform, fulfill & accomplish the annexed contract, by them entered into this day, & shall faithfully, in every respect comply with every covenant therein contained, agreeably to the tenor of the agreement aforesaid, without any delay or defalcation whatever, then this obligation to cease, determine & be void, and if otherwise, the same shall remain in full force & Virtue.
Signed sealed & delivered Henry Eckford
130 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
CONTRACT TO BUILD SHIPHOUSES OVER THE NEW
ORLEANS & CHIPPEWA 415
now all men by these presents that we William Vaughan of Sackets Harbor, Marinus W. K Gilbert and William Smith of Watertown all of the state of New York, are held and firmly bound unto the United States of America in the sum of thirty four thousand Dollars to be paid to the said U. States — for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, and each of us, and each of our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals and dated this twenty sixth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifteen —
Whereas the above bound William Vaughan has contracted and agrees with Melancthon T. Woolsey Esqr of the U. States Navy, in behalf of the U. States Navy Department at Sackets Harbor to build a house over the two ships, on the stocks, at Sackets Harbor and at Store’s Harbor in the following manner, Viz: The building is to be of sufficient size to admit the ships to be launched from under them, with a shingle roof and sides and ends covered with rough boards with two inches lap the beams to be secured to the posts (besides a tenant & mortise) with an iron clamp to the end of each beam, which clamp is to go round the post and bolt through the beam with thirteen windows or ports and propper [sic] shutters, to be placed at equal distances in two tiers on each side of each building, and four in each end, and in a substantial and workmanlike manner, all the materials to be furnished and delivered on the spot by Melancthon T. Woolsey Esqr of the U. States Navy aforesaid in behalf of the aforesaid U. S. Navy Department in consideration whereof the aforesaid William Vaughan is to receive and be paid as follows — Viz. Four thousand two hundred and fifty dollars to be advanced the said William Vaughan upon the executing of the contract, six thousand three hundred and seventy five Dollars to be paid when the buildings are raised, and six thousand three hundred & seventy five Dollars to be paid when the work is complete making in all seventeen thousand dollars for the two buildings and it is understood & agreed to by said William Vaughan that should the Navy Commissioners disapprove of the contract (it being necessary that the work should be commenced immediately) that he the said William Vaughan is to receive pay, only for what work may be done when such disapproval shall be known from the Navy Board — And whereas the said contract and agreement
415 Settled Accounts, entry 811, Woolsey.
GIBSON NEW ORLEANS CLASS SHIPS OF THE LINE 131 is hereby reduced to writing and this instrument is acknowledged and declared fully to contain and express the same —
Now therefore the condition of the preceding obligation is such that if the said contract and agreement herein before recited set forth and expressed shall be well truly faithfully and punctually executed, complied and observed and carried into effect in all things, then the preceding obligation shall be void and otherwise the same shall remain in full force and Virtue.
Signed, sealed & delivered in the /s/ William Vaughan presence of /s/ Marinus W. Gilbert /s/ Benj: Parker Witness to /s/ Mel T Woolsey William Vaughan & M. W. Gilbert signing /s/ James Brooks Witness to the signature of Melancthon T. Woolsey
132 WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 24 NOVEMBER 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
he author is indebted to those who took the time to review and comment on a draft of this T paper: Dana Ashdown, Benjamin Ford, John Grodzinski, Walter Lewis, Matthew MacVittie, Thomas Malcomson, Jonathan Moore, Clayton Nans, Stephen Otto and Peter Rindlisbacher. Their review, comments and suggestions made this a better paper but any errors that remain are my sole responsibility.
REFERENCE ABBREVIATIONS
The following abbreviations are used in the notes: AF NAUS, RG45, Area File of the Naval Records Collection, Area 7, film M625. ASPNA American State Papers, Class 6 - Naval Affairs. CELS NAUS, RG77, Letters Sent by the Chief of Engineers Relating to Internal Improvements 1824- 1830. 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). DANFS Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (Washington: Navy Department, 1958-1961) LAC Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa ON NAUK National Archives (United Kingdom) NAUS National Archives (United States) NCLRC NAUS, RG45, entry 220, Navy Commissioners Letters Received from Commandants. PRC Parish-Rosseel Collection, St. Lawrence University Library, Canton, NY. RAO NAUS, RG217, Records of the Accountant of the Navy and the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, entry 210. RG Record Group Settled Accounts NAUS, RG217, Records of the Accounting Officers of the Treasury, Fourth Auditor Settled Accounts. SHL Library and Archives at the Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site, Sackets Harbor NY. SNLRC NAUS, RG45, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy From Captains (“Captain’s Letters”), film M125. SNLRM NAUS, RG45, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy From Miscellaneous, film M124. SNLRO NAUS, RG45, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Navy From Officers Below the Rank of Commander, film M148. SNLSC NAUS, RG45, Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Navy to Commandants and Navy Agents, film T829. SNLSM NAUS, RG45, Miscellaneous Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Navy, film M209. SNLSO NAUS, RG45, Letters Sent by the Secretary of the Navy to Officers, film M149. SNPLB NAUS, RG45, Secretary of the Navy’s Private Letter Book, film T829 roll 453. WJP William Jones Papers, call 1378A, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA.