The New York Times: Stanza: “The iPhone or iPod Touch can act as an electronic book reader.”
Tip of the Week: Turn Your iPhone Into an e-Book

American Merchant Ships and Sailors by Abbot, Willis J. - CHAPTER V

(download Open eBook Format)

American Merchant Ships and Sailors

CHAPTER V

THE PRI­VA­TEERS--PART TAK­EN BY MER­CHANT SAILORS IN BUILD­ING UP THE PRI­VA­TEER­ING SYS­TEM--LAW­LESS STATE OF THE HIGH SEAS--METHOD OF DIS­TRIBUT­ING PRI­VA­TEER­ING PROF­ITS--PIC­TURESQUE FEA­TURES OF THE CALL­ING--THE GEN­TLE­MEN SAILORS--EF­FECT ON THE REV­OLU­TION­ARY ARMY--PER­ILS OF PRI­VA­TEER­ING--THE OLD JER­SEY PRISON SHIP--EX­TENT OF PRI­VA­TEER­ING--EF­FECT ON AMER­ICAN MA­RINE AR­CHI­TEC­TURE--SOME FA­MOUS PRI­VA­TEERS--THE “CHAS­SEUR,” THE “PRINCE DE NEUFCHA­TEL,” THE “MAM­MOTH”--THE SYS­TEM OF CON­VOYS AND THE “RUN­NING SHIPS”--A TYP­ICAL PRI­VA­TEERS' BAT­TLE--THE “GEN­ER­AL ARM­STRONG” AT FAY­AL--SUM­MA­RY OF THE WORK OF THE PRI­VA­TEERS

In the ear­ly days of a new com­mu­ni­ty the cit­izen, be he nev­er so peace­ful, is com­pelled, per­force, to take on the ways and the trap­pings of the fight­ing man. The pi­oneer is half hunter, half scout. The farmer on the out­posts of civ­iliza­tion must be more than half a sol­dier; the cow­boy or ranch­man on our south­west fron­tier goes about a walk­ing ar­se­nal, ready at all times to take the laws in­to his own hands, and scorn­ing to call on sher­iffs or oth­er peace of­fi­cers for pro­tec­tion against per­son­al in­jury. And while the orig­inal pur­pose of this mil­itant, even de­fi­ant, at­ti­tude is self-​pro­tec­tion, those who are long com­pelled to main­tain it con­ceive a con­tempt for the law, which they find in­ad­equate to guard them, and not in­fre­quent­ly de­gen­er­ate in­to ban­dits.

It is hard­ly too much to say that the nine­teenth cen­tu­ry was al­ready well in­to its sec­ond quar­ter be­fore there was a sem­blance of rec­og­nized law up­on the high seas. Pi­rates and buc­ca­neers, pri­va­teers, and the naval ves­sels of the times that were lit­tle more than pi­rates, made the lot of the mer­chant sailor of the sev­en­teenth and eigh­teenth cen­turies a pre­car­ious one. Wars were con­stant, de­clared on the flim­si­est pre­texts and with scant no­tice; so that the sailor putting out from port in a time of uni­ver­sal peace could feel no cer­tain­ty that the first for­eign ves­sel he met might not cap­ture him as spoil of some war of which he had no knowl­edge. Ac­cord­ing­ly, sailors learned to de­fend them­selves, and the ship's ar­mory was as nec­es­sary and vast­ly bet­ter stocked than the ship's medicine case. To point a car­ronade be­came as need­ful an ac­com­plish­ment as to box the com­pass; and he was no A.B. who did not know how to swing a cut­lass.

Out of such con­di­tions, and out of the wars which the Napoleon­ic plague forced up­on the world, sprung the prac­tise of pri­va­teer­ing; and while it is the pur­pose of this book to tell the sto­ry of the Amer­ican mer­chant sailor on­ly, it could not be com­plete with­out some ac­count, how­ev­er brief, of the Amer­ican pri­va­teers­man. For, in­deed, the two were one through­out a con­sid­er­able pe­ri­od of our mar­itime his­to­ry, the sailor turn­ing pri­va­teers­man or the pri­va­teers­man sailor as po­lit­ical or trade con­di­tions de­mand­ed. In our colo­nial times, and in the ear­li­er days of the na­tion, to be a fa­mous pri­va­teers­man, or to have had a hand in fit­ting out a suc­cess­ful pri­va­teer, was no mean pass­port to fame and for­tune. Some of the names most em­inent in the his­to­ry of our coun­try ap­pear in con­nec­tion with the out­fit­ting or com­mand of pri­va­teers; and not a few of the old­est for­tunes of New Eng­land had their ori­gin in this form of le­gal­ized pira­cy. And, af­ter all, it is the need of the times that fix­es the moral­ity of an act. To-​day pri­va­teer­ing is dead; not by any for­mal agree­ment, for the Unit­ed States, at the Congress of Paris, re­fused to agree to its out­lawry; but in our war with Spain no re­course was had to let­ters of mar­que by ei­ther com­bat­ant, and it seems un­like­ly that in any fu­ture war be­tween civ­ilized na­tions ei­ther par­ty will court the con­tempt of the world by go­ing back to the old cus­tom of char­ter­ing ban­dit­ti to steal the prop­er­ty of pri­vate cit­izens of the hos­tile na­tion if found at sea. Pri­vate prop­er­ty on shore has long been re­spect­ed by the armies of Chris­ten­dom, and why its pres­ence in a ship rather than in a cart makes it a fit ob­ject of plun­der baf­fles the un­der­stand­ing. Per­haps in time the kin­dred cus­tom of award­ing prize mon­ey to naval of­fi­cers, which makes of them a species of pri­va­teers, and pays them for cap­tur­ing a help­less mer­chant ship, while an army of­fi­cer gets noth­ing for tak­ing the most pow­er­ful fort, may like­wise be set aside as a rel­ic of me­dieval war­fare.

In its ear­li­est days, of course, pri­va­teer­ing was the weapon of a na­tion weak at sea against one with a large navy. So when the colonies threw down the gage of bat­tle to Great Britain, al­most the first act of the Rev­olu­tion­ary gov­ern­ment was to au­tho­rize pri­vate own­ers to fit out armed ships to prey on British com­merce. Some of the shipown­ers of New Eng­land had en­joyed some ex­pe­ri­ence of the prof­its of this pe­cu­liar in­dus­try in the Sev­en Years' War, when quite a num­ber of colo­nial pri­va­teers har­ried the French on the seas, and ac­cord­ing­ly the re­sponse was prompt. In en­ter­pris­es of this char­ac­ter the sys­tem of prof­it-​shar­ing, al­ready not­ed in con­nec­tion with whal­ing, ob­tained. The own­ers took a cer­tain share of each prize, and the re­main­der was di­vid­ed among the of­fi­cers and crew in cer­tain fixed pro­por­tions. How great were the prof­its ac­cru­ing to a pri­va­teers­man in a “run of luck” might be il­lus­trat­ed by two facts set forth by Maclay, whose “His­to­ry of Amer­ican Pri­va­teers” is the chief au­thor­ity on the sub­ject. He as­serts that “it fre­quent­ly hap­pened that even the com­mon sailors re­ceived as their share in one cruise, over and above their wages, one thou­sand dol­lars--a small for­tune in those days for a mariner,” and fur­ther that “one of the boys in the 'Ranger,' who less than a month be­fore had left a farm, re­ceived as his share one ton of sug­ar, from thir­ty to forty gal­lons of fourth-​proof Ja­maica rum, some twen­ty pounds of cot­ton, and about the same quan­ti­ty of gin­ger, log­wood, and all­spice, be­sides sev­en hun­dred dol­lars in mon­ey.” To be sure, in or­der to en­joy gains like these, the men had to risk the per­ils of bat­tle in ad­di­tion to the com­mon ones of the sea; but it is a cu­ri­ous fact, rec­og­nized in all branch­es of in­dus­try, that the mere per­il of a call­ing does not de­ter men from fol­low­ing it, and when it promis­es high prof­it it is sure to be over­crowd­ed. In civ­il life to-​day the most dan­ger­ous call­ings are those which are, as a rule, the most ill paid.

Very speed­ily the pri­va­teers­men be­came the most pros­per­ous and the most pic­turesque fig­ures along the wa­ter­side of the At­lantic cities. While the dig­ni­fied mer­chant or shipown­er, with a third in­ter­est in the “Dare­dev­il” or the “Fly­bynight,” might still main­tain the sober de­meanor of a good cit­izen and a pil­lar of the church, de­spite his prof­its of fifty or an hun­dred per cent. on each cruise, the gal­lant sailors who came back to town with pock­ets full of eas­ily-​won mon­ey, and the rec­ol­lec­tion of long and dis­mal weeks at sea be­hind them, were spec­tac­ular in their re­joic­ings. Their mon­ey was poured out freely while it last­ed; and their ex­am­ple stirred all the towns­boys, from the best fam­ilies down to the scour­ings of the docks, to en­ter the same gen­tle­man­like pro­fes­sion.

Queer­ly enough, in a time of uni­ver­sal democ­ra­cy, a pro­vi­sion was made on many of the pri­va­teers for the young men of fam­ily who de­sired to fol­low the call­ing. They were called “gen­tle­men sailors,” and, in con­sid­er­ation of their so­cial stand­ing and the fact that they were trained to arms, were grant­ed spe­cial and un­usu­al priv­ileges, such as free­dom from the drudgery of work­ing the ship, bet­ter fare than the com­mon sailors, and more com­fort­able quar­ters. In­deed, they were free of du­ty ex­cept when fight­ing was to be done, and at oth­er times ful­filled the func­tion of the ma­rine guards on our mod­ern men-​of-​war. This came to be a very pop­ular call­ing for ad­ven­tur­ous young men of some fam­ily in­flu­ence.

It has been claimed by some writ­ers that “the Rev­olu­tion was won by the New Eng­land pri­va­teers”; and, in­deed, there can be no doubt that their ac­tiv­ity did con­tribute in no small de­gree to the out­come of that strug­gle. Britain was then, as now, es­sen­tial­ly a com­mer­cial na­tion, and the out­cry of her mer­chants when the rav­ages of Amer­ican pri­va­teers drove ma­rine in­sur­ance rates up to thir­ty-​three per cent., and even for a time made com­pa­nies refuse it al­to­geth­er, was clam­orous. But there was an­oth­er side to the sto­ry. Pri­va­teer­ing, like all ir­reg­ular ser­vice, was de­mor­al­iz­ing, not alone to the men en­gaged in it, but to the youth of the coun­try as well. The sto­ries of the easy life and the great prof­its of the pri­va­teers­men were cir­cu­lat­ed in ev­ery lit­tle town, while the rev­els of these sea sol­diers in the wa­ter-​front vil­lages were de­scribed with pic­turesque em­bel­lish­ments through­out the land. As a re­sult, it be­came hard to get young men of spir­it in­to the pa­tri­ot armies. Wash­ing­ton com­plained that when the for­tunes of his army were at their low­est, when he could not get cloth­ing for his sol­diers, and the snow at Val­ley Forge was stained with the blood of their un­shod feet, any Amer­ican ship­ping on a pri­va­teer was sure of a com­pe­tence, while great for­tunes were be­ing made by the spec­ula­tors who fit­ted them out. Nor was this all. Such was the at­trac­tion of the pri­va­teer's life that it drew to it sea­men from ev­ery branch of the mar­itime call­ing. The fish­eries and the West In­dia trade, which had long been the chief main­stay of New Eng­land com­merce, were ru­ined, and it seemed for a time as if the hardy race of Amer­ican sea­men were to de­gen­er­ate in­to a mere body of buc­ca­neers, op­er­at­ing un­der the pro­tec­tion of in­ter­na­tion­al law, but plun­der­ers and spoil­ers nev­er­the­less. For­tu­nate­ly, the long peace which suc­ceed­ed the War of 1812 gave op­por­tu­ni­ty for the nat­ural­ly law­ful and civ­ilized in­stincts of the Amer­icans to as­sert them­selves, and this per­il was avert­ed.

It is, then, with no ad­mi­ra­tion for the call­ing, and yet with no un­der­es­ti­mate of its val­ue to the na­tion, that I re­count some of the achieve­ments of those who fol­lowed it. The pe­ri­ods when Amer­ican pri­va­teer­ing was im­por­tant were those of the Rev­olu­tion and the War of 1812. Dur­ing the Civ­il War the loss in­curred by pri­va­teers fell up­on our own peo­ple, and it is cu­ri­ous to note how dif­fer­ent a tone the writ­ers on this sub­ject adopt when dis­cussing the rav­ages of the Con­fed­er­ate pri­va­teers and those which we let loose up­on British com­merce in the brave days of 1812.

A true type of the Rev­olu­tion­ary pri­va­teers­men was Cap­tain Silas Tal­bot, of Mas­sachusetts. He was one of the New Eng­land lads ap­pren­ticed to the sea at an ear­ly age, hav­ing been made a cab­in-​boy at twelve. He rose to com­mand and ac­quired means in his pro­fes­sion, as we have seen was com­mon among our ear­ly mer­chant sailors, and when the Rev­olu­tion broke out was liv­ing com­fort­ably in his own man­sion in Prov­idence. He en­list­ed in Wash­ing­ton's army, but left it to be­come a pri­va­teer; and from that ser­vice he stepped to the quar­ter-​deck of a man-​of-​war. This was not an un­com­mon line of de­vel­op­ment for the ear­ly pri­va­teers­men; and, in­deed, it was not un­usu­al to find navy of­fi­cers, tem­porar­ily with­out com­mands, tak­ing a cruise or two as pri­va­teers, un­til Congress should pro­vide more ships for the reg­ular ser­vice--a sys­tem which did not tend to make a Congress, which was nig­gard­ly at best, has­ten to pro­vide pub­lic ves­sels for work which was be­ing rea­son­ably well done at pri­vate ex­pense. As a re­sult of this sys­tem, we find such fa­mous naval names as De­catur, Porter, Hop­kins, Pre­ble, Bar­ry, and Bar­ney al­so fig­ur­ing in the lists of pri­va­teers­men. Tal­bot's first no­table ex­ploit was clear­ing New York har­bor of sev­er­al British men-​of-​war by the use of fire-​ships. Wash­ing­ton, with his army, was then en­camped at Harlem Heights, and the British ships were in the Hud­son Riv­er men­ac­ing his flank. Tal­bot, in a fire-​ship, well load­ed with com­bustibles, dropped down the riv­er and made for the biggest of the en­emy's fleet, the “Asia.” Though quick­ly dis­cov­ered and made the tar­get of the en­emy's bat­tery, he held his ves­sel on her course un­til fair­ly along­side of and en­tan­gled with the “Asia,” when the fus­es were light­ed and the vol­canic craft burst in­to roar­ing flames from stem to stern. So rapid was the progress of the flames that Tal­bot and his com­pan­ions could scarce­ly es­cape with their lives from the con­fla­gra­tion they had them­selves start­ed, and he lay for days, bad­ly burned and un­able to see, in a lit­tle log hut on the Jer­sey shore. The British ships were not de­stroyed; but, con­vinced that the neigh­bor­hood was un­safe for them, they dropped down the bay; so the end sought for was at­tained. In 1779 Tal­bot was giv­en com­mand of the sloop “Ar­go,” of 100 tons; “a mere shal­lop, like a clum­sy Al­bany sloop,” says his bi­og­ra­pher. Six­ty men from the army, most of whom had served afloat, were giv­en him for crew, and he set out to clear Long Is­land Sound of To­ry pri­va­teers; for the loy­al­ists in New York were quite as avid for spoils as the New Eng­land Rev­olu­tion­ists. On his sec­ond cruise he took sev­en prizes, in­clud­ing two of these pri­va­teers. One of these was a 300-ton ship, vast­ly su­pe­ri­or to the “Ar­go” in ar­ma­ment and num­bers, and the bat­tle was a fierce one. Near­ly ev­ery man on the quar­ter-​deck of the “Ar­go” was killed or wound­ed; the speak­ing trum­pet in Tal­bot's hand was pierced by two bul­lets, and a can­non-​ball car­ried away the tail of his coat. The dam­ages sus­tained in this bat­tle were scarce re­paired when an­oth­er British pri­va­teer ap­peared, and Tal­bot again went in­to ac­tion and took her, though of scarce half her size. In all this lit­tle “Ar­go”--which, by the way, be­longed to Nicholas Low, of New York, an an­ces­tor of the em­inent Seth Low--took twelve prizes. Her com­man­der was fi­nal­ly cap­tured and sent first to the in­fa­mous “Jer­sey” prison-​ship, and af­ter­ward to the Old Mill Prison in Eng­land.

[Il­lus­tra­tion: NEAR­LY EV­ERY MAN ON THE QUAR­TER­DECK OF THE “AR­GO” WAS KILLED OR WOUND­ED.]

The “Jer­sey” prison-​ship was not an un­com­mon lot for the bold pri­va­teers­man, who, when once con­signed to it, found that the re­ward of a sea-​rover was not al­ways wealth and plea­sure. A Mas­sachusetts pri­va­teers­man left on record a con­tem­po­rary ac­count of the suf­fer­ings of him­self and his com­rades in this pesti­len­tial hulk, which may well be con­densed here to show some of the per­ils that the ad­ven­tur­ers dared when they took to the sea.

[Il­lus­tra­tion: THE PRISON SHIP “JER­SEY”.]

Af­ter about one-​third of the cap­tives made with this writ­er had been seized and car­ried away to serve against their coun­try on British war-​ships, the rest were con­veyed to the “Jer­sey,” which had been orig­inal­ly a 74-gun ship, then cut down to a hulk and moored at the Wal­labout, at that time a lone­ly and de­sert­ed place on the Long Is­land shore, now about the cen­ter of the Brook­lyn riv­er front. “I found my­self,” writes the cap­tive, “in a loath­some prison among a col­lec­tion of the most wretched and dis­gust­ing ob­jects I ev­er be­held in hu­man form. Here was a mot­ley crew cov­ered with rags and filth, vis­ages pal­lid with dis­ease, ema­ci­at­ed with hunger and anx­iety, and re­tain­ing hard­ly a trace of their orig­inal ap­pear­ance.... The first day we could ob­tain no food, and sel­dom on the sec­ond could pris­on­ers se­cure it in sea­son for cook­ing it. Each pris­on­er re­ceived one-​third as much as was al­lot­ted to a tar in the British navy. Our bill of fare was as fol­lows: On Sun­day, one pound of bis­cuit, one pound of pork, and half a pint of peas; Mon­day, one pound of bis­cuit, one pint of oat­meal, and two ounces of but­ter; Tues­day, one pound of bis­cuit and two pounds of salt beef, etc., etc. If this food had been of good qual­ity and prop­er­ly cooked, as we had no la­bor to per­form, it would have kept us com­fort­able; but all our food ap­peared to be dam­aged. As for the pork, we were cheat­ed out of more than half of it, and when it was ob­tained one would have judged from its mot­ley hues, ex­hibit­ing the con­sis­ten­cy and ap­pear­ance of var­ie­gat­ed fan­cy soap, that it was the flesh of the por­poise or sea-​hog, and had been an in­hab­itant of the ocean rather than the sty. The peas were about as di­gestible as grape-​shot; and the but­ter--had it not been for its ad­he­sive prop­er­ties to re­tain to­geth­er the par­ti­cles of bis­cuit that had been so rid­dled by the worms as to lose all their at­trac­tion of co­he­sion, we should not have con­sid­ered it a de­sir­able ad­di­tion to our viands. The flour and oat­meal were sour, and the suet might have been nosed the whole length of our ship. Many times since, when I have seen in the coun­try a large ket­tle of pota­toes and pump­kins steam­ing over the fire to sat­is­fy the ap­petite of some farmer's swine, I have thought of our des­ti­tute and starved con­di­tion, and what a lux­ury we should have con­sid­ered the con­tents of that ket­tle aboard the 'Jer­sey.'... About two hours be­fore sun­set or­ders were giv­en the pris­on­ers to car­ry all their things be­low; but we were per­mit­ted to re­main above un­til we re­tired for the night in­to our un­healthy and crowd­ed dun­geons. At sun­set our ears were salut­ed with the in­sult­ing and hate­ful sound from our keep­ers of 'Down, rebels, down,' and we were hur­ried be­low, the hatch­ways fas­tened over us, and we were left to pass the night amid the ac­cu­mu­lat­ed hor­rors of sighs and groans, of foul va­por, a nau­seous and pu­trid at­mo­sphere, in a sti­fled and al­most suf­fo­cat­ing heat.... When any of the pris­on­ers had died dur­ing the night, their bod­ies were brought to the up­per deck in the morn­ing and placed up­on the grat­ings. If the de­ceased had owned a blan­ket, any pris­on­er might sew it around the corpse; and then it was low­ered, with a rope tied round the mid­dle, down the side of the ship in­to a boat. Some of the pris­on­ers were al­lowed to go on shore un­der a guard to per­form the la­bor of in­ter­ment. In a bank near the Wal­labout, a hole was ex­ca­vat­ed in the sand, in which the body was put, then slight­ly cov­ered. Many bod­ies would, in a few days af­ter this mock­ery of a buri­al, be ex­posed near­ly bare by the ac­tion of the el­ements.”

Such was, in­deed, the end of many of the most gal­lant of the Rev­olu­tion­ary pri­va­teers­men; but squalid and cru­el as was the fate of these un­for­tu­nates, it had no ef­fect in de­ter­ring oth­ers from seek­ing for­tune in the same call­ing. In 1775-76 there were com­mis­sioned 136 ves­sels, with 1360 guns; in 1777, 73 ves­sels, with 730 guns; in 1778, 115 pri­va­teers, with a to­tal of 1150 guns; in 1779, 167 ves­sels, with 2505 guns; in 1780, 228 ves­sels, with 3420 guns; in 1781, 449 ves­sels, with 6735 (the high-​wa­ter mark): and in 1782, 323 ves­sels, with 4845 guns. More­over, the ves­sels grew in size and ef­fi­cien­cy, un­til to­ward the lat­ter end of the war they were in fact well-​equipped war-​ves­sels, ready to give a good ac­count of them­selves in a fight with a British frigate, or even to en­gage a shore bat­tery and cut out prizes from a hos­tile har­bor. It is, in fact, a strik­ing ev­idence of the gal­lantry and the pa­tri­otism of the pri­va­teers­men that they did not seek to evade bat­tle with the en­emy's armed forces. Their busi­ness was, of course, to earn prof­its for the mer­chants who had fit­ted them out, and prof­its were most eas­ily earned by prey­ing up­on in­fe­ri­or or de­fense­less ves­sels. But the spir­it of the war was strong up­on many of them, and it is not too much to say that the pri­va­teers were han­dled as gal­lant­ly and ac­cept­ed un­fa­vor­able odds in bat­tle as read­ily as could any men-​of-​war. Their rav­ages up­on British com­merce plunged all com­mer­cial Eng­land in­to woe. The war had hard­ly pro­ceed­ed two years when it was for­mal­ly de­clared in the House of Com­mons that the loss­es to Amer­ican pri­va­teers amount­ed to sev­en hun­dred and thir­ty-​three ships, of a val­ue of over $11,000,000. Mr. Maclay es­ti­mates from this that “our am­ateur man-​of-​war's men av­er­aged more than four prizes each,” while some took twen­ty and one ship twen­ty-​eight in a sin­gle cruise. Near­ly eleven hun­dred pris­on­ers were tak­en with the cap­tured ships. While there are no com­plete fig­ures for the whole pe­ri­od of the war ob­tain­able, it is not to be be­lieved that quite so high a record was main­tained, for dread of pri­va­teers soon drove British ship­ping in­to their har­bors, whence they put forth, if at all, un­der the pro­tec­tion of naval con­voys. Nev­er­the­less, the num­ber of cap­tures must have con­tin­ued great for some years; for, as is shown by the fore­go­ing fig­ures, the spoils were suf­fi­cient­ly at­trac­tive to cause a steady in­crease in the num­ber of pri­va­teers un­til the last year of the war.

There fol­lowed dull times for the pri­va­teers­men. Most of them re­turned to their or­di­nary av­oca­tions of sea or shore--be­came peace­ful sailors, or fish­er­men, or ship-​builders, or farm­ers once again. But in so great a body of men who had lived sword in hand for years, and had fat­tened on the spoils of the com­merce of a great na­tion, it was in­evitable that there should be many ut­ter­ly un­able to re­turn to the hum­drum life of hon­est in­dus­try. Many drift­ed down to that re­gion of ro­mance and out­lawry, dear to the heart of the ro­man­tic boy, the Span­ish Main, and there, as pi­rates in a small way and as buc­ca­neers, pur­sued the preda­to­ry life. For a time the war which sprung up be­tween Eng­land and France seemed to promise these tur­bu­lent spir­its con­ge­nial and law­ful oc­cu­pa­tion. France, it will be re­mem­bered, sent the Cit­izen Genet over to the Unit­ed States to take ad­van­tage of the sup­posed grat­itude of the Amer­ican peo­ple for aid dur­ing the Rev­olu­tion to fit out pri­va­teers and to make our ports bases of op­er­ation against the British. It must be ad­mit­ted that Genet would have had an easy task, had he had but the peo­ple to reck­on with. He found pri­va­teer­ing vet­er­ans by the thou­sand ea­ger to take up that man­ner of life once more. In all the sea­coast towns were mer­chants quite as ready for prof­itable ven­tures in pri­va­teer­ing un­der the French flag as un­der their own, pro­vid­ed they could be as­sured of im­mu­ni­ty from gov­ern­men­tal pros­ecu­tion. And, fi­nal­ly, he found the mass­es of the peo­ple fired with en­thu­si­asm for the prin­ci­ples of the French Rev­olu­tion, and ea­ger to show sym­pa­thy for a peo­ple who, like them­selves, had thrown off the yoke of kings. The few pri­va­teers that Min­is­ter Genet fit­ted out be­fore Pres­ident Wash­ing­ton be­came aroused to his in­frac­tion of the prin­ci­ples of neu­tral­ity were quick­ly manned, and be­gan send­ing in prizes al­most be­fore they were out of sight of the Amer­ican shore. The cri­sis came, how­ev­er, when one of these ships ac­tu­al­ly cap­tured a British mer­chant­man in Delaware Bay. Then the ad­min­is­tra­tion made a vig­or­ous protest, de­mand­ed the re­lease of the ves­sels tak­en, ar­rest­ed two Amer­ican sailors who had shipped on the pri­va­teer, and broke up at once the whole project of the French­man. It was a crit­ical mo­ment in our na­tion­al his­to­ry, for, be­tween France and Eng­land abroad, the Fed­er­al­ist and Re­pub­li­can at home, the Pres­ident had to steer a course be­set with reefs. The mar­itime com­mu­ni­ty was not great­ly in sym­pa­thy with his sup­pres­sion of the French min­is­ter's plans, and with some rea­son, for British pri­va­teers had been mo­lest­ing our ves­sels all along our coasts and dis­tant wa­ters. It was a time when no mer­chant could tell whether the stout ship he had sent out was even then dis­charg­ing her car­go at her des­ti­na­tion, or tied up as a prize in some British port. We Amer­icans are apt to re­gard with some pride Wash­ing­ton's stout ad­her­ence to the most rigid let­ter of the law of neu­tral­ity in those trou­blous times, and our his­to­ri­ans have been at some pains to im­press us with the im­pro­pri­ety of Jef­fer­son's scarce­ly con­cealed lik­ing for France; but the fact is that no vi­ola­tion of the neu­tral­ity law which Genet sought was more glar­ing than those con­tin­ual­ly com­mit­ted by Great Britain, and which our Gov­ern­ment failed to re­sent. In time France, moved part­ly by pique be­cause of our re­fusal to aid her, and part­ly by con­tempt for a na­tion that failed to pro­tect its ships against British ag­gres­sion, be­gan it­self to prey up­on our com­merce. Then the state of our mar­itime trade was a dis­mal one. Our ships were the prey of both France and Eng­land; but since we were neu­tral, the right of fit­ting out pri­va­teers of our own was de­nied our ship­ping in­ter­ests. We were ground be­tween the up­per and nether mill­stones.

But, as so of­ten hap­pens, per­se­cu­tion bred the spir­it and cre­at­ed the weapons for its cor­rec­tion. When it was found that ev­ery Amer­ican ves­sel was the pos­si­ble spoil of any French or En­glish cruis­er or pri­va­teer that she might en­counter; that our Gov­ern­ment was im­po­tent to pro­tect its sea­men; that nei­ther our neu­tral­ity rights nor the neu­tral­ity of ports in which our ves­sels lay com­mand­ed the re­spect of the two great bel­liger­ents, the Yan­kee ship­ping mer­chants set about meet­ing the sit­ua­tion as best they might. They did not give up their ef­fort to se­cure the world's trade--that was nev­er an Amer­ican method of pro­ce­dure. But they built their ships so as to be able to run away from any­thing they might meet; and they manned and armed them so as to fight if fight­ing be­came nec­es­sary. So the Amer­ican mer­chant­man be­came a long, sharp, clip­per-​built craft that could show her heels to al­most any­thing afloat; mod­er­ate of draft, so that she could run in­to la­goons and bays where no war­ship could fol­low. They mount­ed from four to twelve guns, and car­ried an ar­mory of ri­fles and cut­lass­es which their men were well trained to han­dle. Ac­cord­ing­ly, when the depre­da­tions of for­eign na­tions be­came such as could not longer be borne, and af­ter Pres­ident Jef­fer­son's plan of pun­ish­ing Eu­rope for in­ter­fer­ing with our com­merce by lay­ing an em­bar­go which kept our ships at home had failed, war was de­clared with Eng­land; and from ev­ery port on the At­lantic seaboard pri­va­teers--ships as fit for their pur­pose as though spe­cial­ly built for it--swarmed forth seek­ing re­venge and spoils. Their very names told of the rea­sons of the Amer­ican mer­chant­men for com­plaint--the rea­sons why they re­joiced that they were now to have their turn. There were the “Or­ders-​in-​Coun­cil,” the “Right-​of-​Search,” the “Fair-​trad­er,” the “Re­venge.” Some were mere pi­lot-​boats, with a Long Tom amid­ships and a crew of six­ty men; oth­ers were ves­sels of 300 tons, with an ar­ma­ment and crew like a man-​of-​war. Be­fore the mid­dle of Ju­ly, 1812, six­ty-​five such pri­va­teers had sailed, and the British mer­chant­men were scud­ding for cov­er like a cov­ey of fright­ened quail.

The War of 1812 was won, so far as it was won at all, on the ocean. In the land op­er­ations from the very be­gin­ning the Amer­icans came off sec­ond best; and the one bat­tle of im­por­tance in which they were the vic­tors--the bat­tle of New Or­leans--was with­out in­flu­ence up­on the re­sult, hav­ing been fought af­ter the treaty of peace had been signed at Ghent. But on the ocean the hon­ors were all tak­en by the Amer­icans, and no small share of these hon­ors fell to the pri­vate armed navy of pri­va­teers. As the war pro­gressed these ves­sels be­came in type more like the reg­ular sloop-​of-​war, for the ear­li­er craft, while use­ful be­fore the British be­gan send­ing out their mer­chant­men un­der con­voy, proved to be too small to fight and too light to es­cape de­struc­tion from one well-​aimed broad­side. The pri­va­teer of 1813 was usu­al­ly about 115 to 120 feet long on the spar-​deck, 31 feet beam, and rigged as a brig or ship. They were al­ways fast sail­ers, and no­table for sail­ing close to the wind. While armed to fight, if need be, that was not their pur­pose, and a pri­va­teers­man who gained the rep­uta­tion among own­ers of be­ing a fight­ing cap­tain was like­ly to go long with­out a com­mand. Ac­cord­ing­ly, these ves­sels were light­ly built and over-​rigged (ac­cord­ing to the ideas of British naval con­struc­tion), for speed was the great desider­atum. They were at once the ad­mi­ra­tion and the en­vy of the British, who im­itat­ed their mod­els with­out suc­cess and tried to uti­lize them for cruis­ers when cap­tured, but de­stroyed their sail­ing qual­ities by al­ter­ing their rig and strength­en­ing their hulls at the ex­pense of light­ness and sym­me­try.

I have al­ready re­ferred to Michael Scott's fa­mous sto­ry of sea life, “Tom Cringle's Log,” which, though in form a work of fic­tion, con­tains so many ac­counts of ac­tu­al hap­pen­ings, and ex­press­es so ful­ly the ideas of the British naval of­fi­cer of that time, that it may well be quot­ed in a work of his­tor­ical char­ac­ter. Tom Cringle, af­ter de­tail­ing with a live­ly de­scrip­tion the cap­ture of a Yan­kee pri­va­teer, says that she was as­signed to him for his next com­mand. He had seen her un­der weigh, had ad­mired her trim mod­el, her ta­per­ing spars, her taut cordage, and the swift­ness with which she came about and reached to wind­ward. He thus de­scribes the change the British out­fit­ters made in her:

“When I had last seen her she was the most beau­ti­ful lit­tle craft, both in hull and rig­ging, that ev­er de­light­ed the eyes of a sailor; but the dock yard rig­gers and car­pen­ters had fair­ly be­dev­iled her at least so far as ap­pear­ances went. First, they had re­placed the light rail on her gun­wale by heavy, sol­id bul­warks four feet high, sur­mount­ed by ham­mock net­tings at least an­oth­er foot; so that the sym­met­ri­cal lit­tle ves­sel, that for­mer­ly float­ed on the foam light as a seag­ull, now looked like a clum­sy, dish-​shaped Dutch dog­ger. Her long, slen­der wands of masts, which used to swing about as if there were nei­ther shrouds nor stays to sup­port them, were now as taut and stiff as church-​steeples, with four heavy shrouds of a side, and stays, and back-​stays, and the dev­il knows what all.”

It is a cu­ri­ous fact that no na­tion ev­er suc­ceed­ed in im­itat­ing these craft. The French went in­to pri­va­teer­ing with­out in the least dis­turb­ing the equa­nim­ity of the British shipown­er; but the day the Yan­kee pri­va­teers took the sea a cry went up from the docks and ware­hous­es of Liv­er­pool and Lon­don that re­ver­ber­at­ed among the arch­es of West­min­ster Hall. The news­pa­pers were loud in their at­tacks up­on the ad­mi­ral­ty au­thor­ities. Said the _Morn­ing Chron­icle_ in 1814:

“That the whole coast of Ire­land, from Wex­ford round by Cape Clear to Car­rick­fer­gus, should have been for above a month un­der the un­re­sist­ed dom­ina­tion of a few pet­ty fly-​by-​nights from the block­ad­ed ports of the Unit­ed States is a grievance equal­ly in­tol­er­able and dis­grace­ful.”

This wail may have re­sult­ed from the pleas­antry of one Cap­tain Boyle, of the pri­va­teer “Chas­seur,” a fa­mous Bal­ti­more clip­per, mount­ing six­teen guns, with a com­ple­ment of one hun­dred of­fi­cers, sea­men, and marines. Cap­tain Boyle, af­ter ex­haust­ing, as it seemed to him, the pos­si­bil­ities of the West In­dies for ex­cite­ment and prof­it, took up the En­glish chan­nel for his fa­vorite cruis­ing-​ground. One of the British de­vices of that day for the em­bar­rass­ment of an en­emy was what is called a “pa­per block­ade.” That is to say, when it ap­peared that the blockad­ing fleet had too few ves­sels to make the block­ade re­al­ly ef­fec­tive by watch­ing each port, the ad­mi­ral com­mand­ing would is­sue a procla­ma­tion that such and such ports were in a state of block­ade, and then with­draw his ves­sels from those ports; but still claim the right to cap­ture any neu­tral ves­sels which he might en­counter bound thith­er. This prac­tise is now uni­ver­sal­ly in­ter­dict­ed by in­ter­na­tion­al law, which de­clares that a block­ade, to be bind­ing up­on neu­trals, must be ef­fec­tive. But in those days Eng­land made her own in­ter­na­tion­al law--for the sea, at any rate--and the pa­per block­ade was one of her pet weapons. Cap­tain Boyle sat­irized this prac­tise by draw­ing up a for­mal procla­ma­tion of block­ade of all the ports of Great Britain and Ire­land, and send­ing it to Lloyds, where it was ac­tu­al­ly post­ed. His ac­tion was not whol­ly a jest, ei­ther, for he did block­ade the port of St. Vin­cent so ef­fec­tive­ly for five days that the in­hab­itants sent off a piti­ful ap­peal to Ad­mi­ral Durham to send a frigate to their re­lief.

It was at this time, too, that the _An­nu­al Reg­is­ter_ record­ed as “a most mor­ti­fy­ing re­flec­tion” that, with a navy of more than one thou­sand ships in com­mis­sion, “it was not safe for a British ves­sel to sail with­out con­voy from one part of the En­glish or Irish Chan­nel to an­oth­er.” Mer­chants held meet­ings, in­sur­ance cor­po­ra­tions and boards of trade memo­ri­al­ized the gov­ern­ment on the sub­ject; the shipown­ers and mer­chants of Glas­gow, in for­mal res­olu­tions, called the at­ten­tion of the ad­mi­ral­ty to the fact that “in the short space of twen­ty-​four months above eight hun­dred ves­sels have been cap­tured by the pow­er whose mar­itime strength we have hith­er­to im­po­lit­ical­ly held in con­tempt.” It was, in­deed, a re­al block­ade of the British Isles that was ef­fect­ed by these ir­reg­ular and pigmy ves­sels manned by the sailors of a na­tion that the British had long held in high scorn. The his­to­ri­an Hen­ry Adams, with­out at­tempt­ing to give any com­plete list of cap­tures made on the British coasts in 1814, cites these facts:

“The 'Siren,' a schooner of less than 200 tons, with sev­en guns and sev­en­ty-​five men, had an en­gage­ment with His Majesty's cut­ter 'Landrail,' of four guns, as the cut­ter was cross­ing the Irish sea with dis­patch­es. The 'Landrail' was cap­tured, af­ter a some­what smart ac­tion, and was sent to Amer­ica, but was re­cap­tured on the way. The vic­to­ry was not re­mark­able, but the place of cap­ture was very sig­nif­icant, and it hap­pened Ju­ly 12 on­ly a fort­night af­ter Blake­ly cap­tured the 'Rein­deer' far­ther west­ward. The 'Siren' was but one of many pri­va­teers in those wa­ters. The 'Gov­er­nor Tomp­kins' burned four­teen ves­sels suc­ces­sive­ly in the British Chan­nel. The 'Young Wasp,' of Philadel­phia, cruised near­ly six months about the coasts of Eng­land and Spain, and in the course of West In­dia com­merce. The 'Harpy,' of Bal­ti­more, an­oth­er large ves­sel of some 350 tons and four­teen guns, cruised near­ly three months off the coast of Ire­land, in the British Chan­nel, and in the Bay of Bis­cay, and re­turned safe­ly to Boston filled with plun­der, in­clud­ing, as was said, up­ward of L100,000 in British trea­sury notes and bills of ex­change. The 'Leo,' a Boston schooner of about 200 tons, was fa­mous for its ex­ploits in these wa­ters, but was cap­tured at last by the frigate 'Tiber,' af­ter a chase of about eleven hours. The 'Mam­moth,' a Bal­ti­more schooner of near­ly 400 tons, was sev­en­teen days off Cape Clear, the south­ern­most point of Ire­land. The most mis­chievous of all was the 'Prince of Neufcha­tel,' New York, which chose the Irish Chan­nel as its fa­vorite haunt, where dur­ing the sum­mer it made or­di­nary coast­ing traf­fic im­pos­si­ble.”

The ves­sels enu­mer­at­ed by Mr. Adams were by no means among the more fa­mous of the pri­va­teers of the War of 1812; yet when we come to ex­am­ine their records we find some­thing no­table or some­thing ro­man­tic in the ca­reer of each--a fact full of sug­ges­tion of the ex­cite­ment of the pri­va­teers­man's life. The “Leo,” for ex­am­ple, at this time was un­der com­mand of Cap­tain George Cogge­shall, the fore­most of all the pri­va­teers, and a man who so loved his call­ing that he wrote an ex­cel­lent book about it. Un­der an ear­li­er com­man­der she made sev­er­al most prof­itable cruis­es, and when pur­chased by Cogge­shall's as­so­ciates was ly­ing in a French port. France and Eng­land were then at peace, and it may be that the French re­mem­bered the way in which we had sup­pressed the Cit­izen Genet. At any rate, they re­fused to let Cogge­shall take his ship out of the har­bor with more than one gun--a Long Tom--aboard. Noth­ing daunt­ed, he start­ed out with this ar­ma­ment, to which some twen­ty mus­kets were added, on a pri­va­teer­ing cruise in the chan­nel, which was full of British cruis­ers. Even the Long Tom proved un­trust­wor­thy, so re­course was fi­nal­ly had to car­ry­ing the en­emy by board­ing; and in this way four valu­able prizes were tak­en, of which three were sent home with prize crews. But a gale car­ried away the “Leo's” fore­mast, and she fell a prey to an En­glish frigate which hap­pened along un­time­ly.

The “Mam­moth” was em­phat­ical­ly a lucky ship. In sev­en weeks she took sev­en­teen mer­chant­men, pay­ing for her­self sev­er­al times over. Once she fought a live­ly bat­tle with a British trans­port car­ry­ing four hun­dred men, but pru­dent­ly drew off. True, the Gov­ern­ment was pay­ing a bonus of twen­ty-​five dol­lars a head for pris­on­ers; but car­goes were more valu­able. Few of the pri­va­teers trou­bled to send in their pris­on­ers, if they could pa­role and re­lease them. In all, the “Mam­moth” cap­tured twen­ty-​one ves­sels, and re­leased on pa­role three hun­dred pris­on­ers.

Of all the fore­go­ing ves­sels, the “Prince de Neufcha­tel” was the most fa­mous. She was an hermaphrodite brig of 310 tons, mount­ing 17 guns. She was a “lucky” ves­sel, sev­er­al times es­cap­ing a vast­ly su­pe­ri­or force and bring­ing in­to port, for the prof­it of her own­ers, goods val­ued at $3,000,000, be­sides large quan­ti­ties of specie. Her his­toric achieve­ment, how­ev­er, was beat­ing off the British frigate “Endymion,” off Nan­tuck­et, one dark night, af­ter a bat­tle con­cern­ing which a British naval his­to­ri­an, none too friend­ly to Amer­icans, wrote: “So de­ter­mined and ef­fec­tive a re­sis­tance did great cred­it to the Amer­ican cap­tain and his crew.” The pri­va­teer had a prize in tow, by which, of course, her move­ments were much ham­pered, for her cap­tain was not in­clined to save him­self at the ex­pense of his booty. But, more than this, she had thir­ty-​sev­en pris­on­ers aboard, while her own crew was sore­ly re­duced by man­ning prizes. The night be­ing calm, the British at­tempt­ed to take the ship by board­ing from small boats, for what rea­son does not read­ily ap­pear, since the ves­sels were with­in range of each oth­er, and the frigate's su­pe­ri­or met­al could prob­ably have re­duced the Amer­icans to sub­jec­tion. In­stead, how­ev­er, of open­ing fire with his broad­side, the en­emy sent out board­ing par­ties in five boats. Their ap­proach was de­tect­ed on the Amer­ican ves­sel, and a rapid fire with small arms and can­non opened up­on them, to which they paid no at­ten­tion, but pressed dogged­ly on. In a mo­ment the boats sur­round­ed the pri­va­teer--one on each bow, one on each side, and one un­der the stern--and the board­ers be­gan to swarm up the sides like cats. It was a bloody hand-​to-​hand con­test that fol­lowed, in which ev­ery weapon, from cut­lass and clubbed mus­ket down to bare hands, was em­ployed. Heavy shot, which had been piled up in readi­ness on deck, were thrown in­to the boats in an ef­fort to sink them. Hun­dreds of load­ed mus­kets were ranged along the rail, so that the fir­ing was not in­ter­rupt­ed to reload. Time and again the British re­newed their ef­forts to board, but were hurled back by the Amer­ican de­fend­ers. A few who suc­ceed­ed in reach­ing the decks were cut down be­fore they had time to prof­it by their brief ad­van­tage. Once on­ly did it seem that the ship was in dan­ger. Then the as­sailants, who out­num­bered the Amer­icans four to one, had reached the deck over the bows in such num­bers that they were grad­ual­ly driv­ing the de­fend­ers aft. Ev­ery mo­ment more men came swarm­ing over the side; and as the Amer­icans ran from all parts of the ship to meet and over­pow­er those who had al­ready reached the deck, new ways were opened for oth­ers to clam­ber aboard. The sit­ua­tion was crit­ical; but was saved by Cap­tain Or­dronaux by a des­per­ate ex­pe­di­ent, and one which it is clear would have availed noth­ing had not his men known him for a man of fierce de­ter­mi­na­tion, ready to ful­fil any des­per­ate threat. Seiz­ing a light­ed match from one of the gun­ners, he ran to the hatch im­me­di­ate­ly over the mag­azine, and called out to his men that if they re­treat­ed far­ther he would blow up the ship, its de­fend­ers, and its as­sailants. The men ral­lied. They swung a can­non in board so that it com­mand­ed the deck, and swept away the in­vaders with a storm of grape. In a few min­utes the re­main­ing British were driv­en back to their boats. The bat­tle had last­ed less than half an hour when the British called for quar­ter, the smoke cleared away, the cries of com­bat ceased, and both par­ties were able to count their loss­es. The crew of the pri­va­teer had num­bered thir­ty-​sev­en, of whom sev­en were killed and twen­ty-​four wound­ed. The British had ad­vanced to the at­tack with a force of one hun­dred and twen­ty-​eight, in five boats. Three of the boats drift­ed away emp­ty, one was sunk, and one was cap­tured. Of the at­tack­ing force not one es­caped; thir­ty were made pris­on­ers, many of them sore­ly wound­ed, and the rest were ei­ther killed or swept away by the tide and drowned. The pri­va­teers ac­tu­al­ly had more pris­on­ers than they had men of their own. Some of the pris­on­ers were kept tow­ing in a launch at the stern, and, by way of strat­egy, Cap­tain Or­dronaux set two boys to play­ing a fife and drum and stamp­ing about in a se­questered part of his decks as though he had a heavy force aboard. On­ly by send­ing the pris­on­ers ashore un­der pa­role was the dan­ger of an up­ris­ing among the cap­tives avert­ed.

[Il­lus­tra­tion: IF THEY RE­TREAT­ED FAR­THER HE WOULD BLOW UP THE SHIP]

In the end the “Prince de Neufcha­tel” was cap­tured by a British squadron, but on­ly af­ter a sud­den squall had car­ried away sev­er­al of her spars and made her help­less.

As the war pro­gressed it be­came the cus­tom of British mer­chants to send out their ships on­ly in fleets, con­voyed by one or two men-​of-​war, a sys­tem that, of course, could be adopt­ed on­ly by na­tions very rich in war-​ships. The pri­va­teers' method of meet­ing this was to cruise in cou­ples, a pair of swift, light schooners, hunt­ing the prize to­geth­er. When the con­voy was en­coun­tered, both would at­tack, pick­ing out each its prey. The con­voys were usu­al­ly made up with a man-​of-​war at the head of the col­umn, and as this ves­sel would make sail af­ter one of the pri­va­teers, the oth­er would rush in at some point out of range, and cut out its prize. When the British be­gan send­ing out two ships of war with each con­voy, the pri­va­teers cruised in threes, and the same tac­tics were ob­served.

But the rich­est prizes won by the pri­va­teer were the sin­gle go­ing ships, called “run­ning ships,” that were pre­pared to de­fend them­selves, and scorned to wait for con­voy. These were gen­er­al­ly great pack­ets trad­ing to the In­dies, whose car­goes were too valu­able to be de­layed un­til some man-​of-​war could be found for their pro­tec­tion. They were heav­ily armed, of­ten, in­deed, equal­ing a frigate in their bat­ter­ies and the size of their crews. But, al­though to at­tack one of these meant a des­per­ate fight, the Yan­kee pri­va­teer al­ways wel­comed the chance, for be­sides a valu­able car­go, they were apt to car­ry a con­sid­er­able sum in specie. The cap­ture of one of these ves­sels, too, was the cause of an­noy­ance to the en­emy dis­pro­por­tion­ate to even their great val­ue to their cap­tors, for they not on­ly car­ried the Roy­al Mail, but were usu­al­ly the agen­cies by which the dis­patch­es of the British gen­er­al were for­ward­ed. Mail and dis­patch­es, alike, were prompt­ly thrown over­board by their cap­tors.

In the di­ary of a pri­va­teers­man of Rev­olu­tion­ary days is to be found the sto­ry of the cap­ture of an In­dia­man which may well be reprint­ed as typ­ical.

[Il­lus­tra­tion: “I THINK SHE IS A HEAVY SHIP.”]

"As the fog cleared up, we per­ceived her to be a large ship un­der En­glish col­ors, to the wind­ward, stand­ing athwart our star­board bow. As she came down up­on us, she ap­peared as large as a sev­en­ty-​four; and we were not de­ceived re­spect­ing her size, for it af­ter­wards proved that she was an old East In­dia­man, of 1100 tons bur­den, fit­ted out as a let­ter of mar­que for the West In­dia trade, mount­ed with thir­ty-​two guns, and fur­nished with a com­ple­ment of one hun­dred and fifty men. She was called the 'Ad­mi­ral Duff,' com­mand­ed by Richard Strange, from St. Christo­pher and St. Eu­stachia, laden with sug­ar and to­bac­co, and bound to Lon­don. I was stand­ing near our first lieu­tenant, Mr. Lit­tle, who was calm­ly ex­am­in­ing the en­emy as she ap­proached, with his spy-​glass, when Cap­tain Williams stepped up and asked his opin­ion of her. The lieu­tenant ap­plied the glass to his eye again and took a de­lib­er­ate look in si­lence, and replied: 'I think she is a heavy ship, and that we shall have some hard fight­ing, but of one thing I am cer­tain, she is not a frigate; if she were, she would not keep yaw­ing and show­ing her broad­sides as she does; she would show noth­ing but her head and stern; we shall have the ad­van­tage of her, and the quick­er we get along­side the bet­ter.' Our cap­tain or­dered En­glish col­ors to be hoist­ed, and the ship to be cleared for ac­tion.

"The en­emy ap­proached 'till with­in mus­ket-​shot of us. The two ships were so near to each oth­er that we could dis­tin­guish the of­fi­cers from the men; and I par­tic­ular­ly no­ticed the cap­tain on the gang­way, a no­ble-​look­ing man, hav­ing a large gold-​laced cocked hat on his head, and a speak­ing-​trum­pet in his hand. Lieu­tenant Lit­tle pos­sessed a pow­er­ful voice, and he was di­rect­ed to hail the en­emy; at the same time the quar­ter­mas­ter was or­dered to stand ready to haul down the En­glish flag and to hoist up the Amer­ican. Our lieu­tenant took his sta­tion on the af­ter part of the star­board gang­way, and el­evat­ing his trum­pet, ex­claimed: 'Hul­lo. Whence come you?'

"'From Ja­maica, bound to Lon­don,' was the an­swer.

"'What is the ship's name?' in­quired the lieu­tenant.

“'The ”Ad­mi­ral Duff",' was the re­ply.

"The En­glish cap­tain then thought it his turn to in­ter­ro­gate, and asked the name of our ship. Lieu­tenant Lit­tle, in or­der to gain time, put the trum­pet to his ear, pre­tend­ing not to hear the ques­tion. Dur­ing the short in­ter­val thus gained, Cap­tain Williams called up­on the gun­ner to as­cer­tain how many guns could be brought to bear up­on the en­emy. 'Five,' was the an­swer. 'Then fire, and shift the col­ors,' were the or­ders. The can­nons poured forth their dead­ly con­tents, and, with the first flash, the Amer­ican flag took the place of the British en­sign at our mast­head.

"The com­pli­ment was re­turned in the form of a full broad­side, and the ac­tion com­menced. I was sta­tioned on the edge of the quar­ter-​deck, to sponge and load a six-​pounder; this po­si­tion gave me a fine op­por­tu­ni­ty to see the whole ac­tion. Broad­sides were ex­changed with great ra­pid­ity for near­ly an hour; our fire, as we af­ter­ward as­cer­tained, pro­duced a ter­ri­ble slaugh­ter among the en­emy, while our loss was as yet tri­fling. I hap­pened to be look­ing for a mo­ment to­ward the main deck, when a large shot came through our ship's side and killed a mid­ship­man. At this mo­ment a shot from one of our marines killed the man at the wheel of the en­emy's ship, and, his place not be­ing im­me­di­ate­ly sup­plied, she was brought along­side of us in such a man­ner as to bring her bowsprit di­rect­ly across our fore­cas­tle. Not know­ing the cause of this move­ment, we sup­posed it to be the in­ten­tion of the en­emy to board us. Our board­ers were or­dered to be ready with their pikes to re­sist any such at­tempt, while our guns on the main deck were send­ing death and de­struc­tion among the crew of the en­emy. Their prin­ci­pal ob­ject now seemed to be to get lib­er­at­ed from us, and by cut­ting away some of their rig­ging, they were soon clear, and at the dis­tance of a pis­tol shot.

"The ac­tion was then re­newed, with ad­di­tion­al fury; broad­side for broad­side con­tin­ued with un­abat­ed vig­or; at times, so near to each oth­er that the muz­zles of our guns came al­most in con­tact, then again at such a dis­tance as to al­low of tak­ing de­lib­er­ate aim. The con­test was ob­sti­nate­ly con­tin­ued by the en­emy, al­though we could per­ceive that great hav­oc was made among them, and that it was with much dif­fi­cul­ty that their men were com­pelled to re­main at their quar­ters. A charge of grape-​shot came in at one of our port­holes, which dan­ger­ous­ly wound­ed four or five of our men, among whom was our third lieu­tenant, Mr. Lit­tle, broth­er to the first.

“The ac­tion had now last­ed about an hour and a half, and the fire from the en­emy be­gan to slack­en, when we sud­den­ly dis­cov­ered that all the sails on her main­mast were en­veloped in a blaze. Fire spread with amaz­ing ra­pid­ity, and, run­ning down the af­ter rig­ging, it soon com­mu­ni­cat­ed with her mag­azine, when her whole stern was blown off, and her valu­able car­go emp­tied in­to the sea. Our en­emy's ship was now a com­plete wreck, though she still float­ed, and the sur­vivors were en­deav­or­ing to save them­selves in the on­ly boat that had es­caped the gen­er­al de­struc­tion. The hu­man­ity of our cap­tain urged him to make all pos­si­ble ex­er­tions to save the mis­er­able wound­ed and burned wretch­es, who were strug­gling for their lives in the wa­ter. The ship of the en­emy was great­ly our su­pe­ri­or in size, and lay much high­er out of the wa­ter. Our boats had been ex­posed to his fire, as they were placed on spars be­tween the fore and main­masts dur­ing the ac­tion, and had suf­fered con­sid­er­able dam­age. The car­pen­ters were or­dered to re­pair them with the ut­most ex­pe­di­tion, and we got them out in sea­son to take up fifty-​five men, the greater part of whom had been wound­ed by our shot, or burned when the pow­der-​mag­azine ex­plod­ed. Their limbs were mu­ti­lat­ed by all man­ner of wounds, while some were burned to such a de­gree that the skin was near­ly flayed from their bod­ies. Our sur­geon and his as­sis­tants had just com­plet­ed the task of dress­ing the wounds of our own crew, and then they di­rect­ed their at­ten­tion to the wound­ed of the en­emy. Sev­er­al of them suf­fered the am­pu­ta­tion of their limbs, five of them died of their wounds, and were com­mit­ted to their wa­tery graves. From the sur­vivors we learned that the British com­man­der had fre­quent­ly ex­pressed a de­sire to come in con­tact with a 'Yan­kee frigate' dur­ing his voy­age, that he might have a prize to car­ry to Lon­don. Poor fel­low. He lit­tle thought of los­ing his ship and his life in an en­gage­ment with a ship so much in­fe­ri­or to his own--with an en­emy up­on whom he looked with so much con­tempt.”

But most no­table of all the bat­tles fought by pri­va­teers­men in the War of 1812, was the de­fense of the brig “Gen­er­al Arm­strong,” in the har­bor of Fay­al, in Septem­ber, 1814. This fa­mous com­bat has passed in­to his­to­ry, not on­ly be­cause of the gal­lant fight made by the pri­va­teer, but be­cause the three British men-​of-​war to whom she gave bat­tle, were on their way to co­op­er­ate with Pack­en­ham at New Or­leans, and the de­lay due to the in­juries they re­ceived, made them too late to aid in that ex­pe­di­tion, and may have thus con­tribut­ed to Gen­er­al Jack­son's suc­cess.

The “Gen­er­al Arm­strong” had al­ways been a lucky craft, and her ex­ploits in the cap­ture of mer­chant­men, no less than the dar­ing of her com­man­der in giv­ing bat­tle to ships-​of-​war which he en­coun­tered, had won her the pe­cu­liar hate of the British navy. At the very be­gin­ning of her ca­reer, when in com­mand of Cap­tain Guy R. Cham­plin, she fought a British frigate for more than an hour, and in­flict­ed such grave dam­age that the en­emy was hap­py enough to let her slip away when the wind fresh­ened. On an­oth­er oc­ca­sion she en­gaged a British armed ship of vast­ly su­pe­ri­or strength, off the Suri­nam Riv­er, and forced her to run ashore. Prob­ably the most valu­able prize tak­en in the war fell to her guns--the ship “Queen,” with a car­go in­voiced at L90,000. In­deed, such had been her au­dac­ity, and so many her suc­cess­es, that the British were ea­ger for her cap­ture or de­struc­tion, above that of any oth­er pri­va­teer.

In Septem­ber, 1814, the “Gen­er­al Arm­strong,” now un­der com­mand of Cap­tain Samuel G. Reid, was at an­chor in the har­bor at Fay­al, a port of Por­tu­gal, when her com­man­der saw a British war-​brig come nos­ing her way in­to the har­bor. Soon af­ter an­oth­er ves­sel ap­peared, and then a third, larg­er than the first two, and all fly­ing the British en­sign. Cap­tain Reid im­me­di­ate­ly be­gan to fear for his safe­ty. It was true that he was in a neu­tral port, and un­der the law of na­tions ex­empt from at­tack, but the British had nev­er man­ifest­ed that ex­treme re­spect for neu­tral­ity that they ex­act­ed of Pres­ident Wash­ing­ton when France tried to fit out pri­va­teers in our ports. More than once they had at­tacked and de­stroyed our ves­sels in neu­tral ports, and, in­deed, it seemed that the British test of neu­tral­ity was whether the na­tion whose flag was thus af­front­ed, was able or like­ly to re­sent it. Por­tu­gal was not such a na­tion.

All this was clear to Cap­tain Reid, and when he saw a rapid sig­nal­ing be­gun be­tween the three ves­sels of the en­emy, he felt con­fi­dent that he was to be at­tacked. He had al­ready dis­cov­ered that the strangers were the 74-gun ship of the line “Plan­ta­genet,” the 38-gun frigate “Ro­ta,” and the 18-gun war-​brig “Car­na­tion,” com­pris­ing a force against which he could not hope to win a vic­to­ry. The night came on clear, with a bright moon, and as the Amer­ican cap­tain saw boats from the two small­er ves­sels ral­ly­ing about the larg­er one, he got out his sweeps and be­gan mov­ing his ves­sel in­shore, so as to get un­der the guns of the de­crepit fort, with which Por­tu­gal guard­ed her har­bor. At this, four boats crowd­ed with men, put out from the side of the British ship, and made for the pri­va­teer, see­ing which, Reid dropped an­chor and put springs on his ca­bles, so as to keep his broad­side to bear on the en­emy as they ap­proached. Then he shout­ed to the British, warn­ing them to keep off, or he would fire. They paid no at­ten­tion to the warn­ing, but pressed on, when he opened a brisk fire up­on them. For a time there was a live­ly in­ter­change of shots, but the su­pe­ri­or marks­man­ship of the Amer­icans soon drove the en­emy out of range with heavy ca­su­al­ties. The British re­treat­ed to their ships with a ha­tred for the Yan­kee pri­va­teer even more bit­ter than that which had im­pelled them to the law­less at­tack, and a fiercer de­ter­mi­na­tion for her de­struc­tion.

It is prop­er to note, that af­ter the bat­tle was fought, and the British com­man­der had calm­ly con­sid­ered the pos­si­ble con­se­quences of his vi­ola­tion of the neu­tral­ity laws, he at­tempt­ed to make it ap­pear that the Amer­icans them­selves were the ag­gres­sors. His plea, as made in a for­mal re­port to the ad­mi­ral­ty, was that he had sent four boats to dis­cov­er the char­ac­ter of the Amer­ican ves­sel; that they, up­on hail­ing her, had been fired up­on and suf­fered se­vere loss, and that ac­cord­ing­ly he felt that the af­front to the British flag could on­ly be ex­pi­at­ed by the de­struc­tion of the ves­sel. The ex­pla­na­tion was not even plau­si­ble, for the British com­man­der, else­where in his re­port, ac­knowl­edged that he was per­fect­ly in­formed as to the iden­ti­ty of the ves­sel, and even had this not been the case, it is not cus­tom­ary to send four boats heav­ily laden with armed men, mere­ly to dis­cov­er the char­ac­ter of a ship in a friend­ly port.

The with­draw­al of the British boats gave Cap­tain Reid time to com­plete the re­moval of his ves­sel to a point un­der­neath the guns of the Por­tuguese bat­tery. This gave him a po­si­tion bet­ter fit­ted for de­fense, al­though his hope that the Por­tuguese would de­fend the neu­tral­ity of their port, was des­tined to dis­ap­point­ment, for not a shot was fired from the bat­tery.

[Il­lus­tra­tion: “STRIV­ING TO REACH HER DECKS AT EV­ERY POINT”]

To­ward mid­night the at­tack was re­sumed, and by this time the fir­ing with­in the har­bor had awak­ened the peo­ple of the town, who crowd­ed down to the shore to see the bat­tle. The British, in ex­pla­na­tion of the re­verse which they suf­fered, de­clared that all the Amer­icans in Fay­al armed them­selves, and from the shore sup­ple­ment­ed the fire from the “Gen­er­al Arm­strong.” Cap­tain Reid, how­ev­er, makes no ref­er­ence to this as­sis­tance. In all, some four hun­dred men joined in the sec­ond at­tack. Twelve boats were in line, most of them with a how­itzer mount­ed in the bow. The Amer­icans used their ar­tillery on these craft as they ap­proached, and in­flict­ed great dam­age be­fore the en­emy were in a po­si­tion to board. The British ves­sels, though with­in easy gun-​fire, dared not use their heavy can­non, lest they should in­jure their own men, and fur­ther­more, for fear that the shot would fall in­to the town. The mid­night strug­gle was a des­per­ate one, the en­emy fair­ly sur­round­ing the “Gen­er­al Arm­strong,” and striv­ing to reach her decks at ev­ery point. But though great­ly out­num­bered, the de­fend­ers were able to main­tain their po­si­tion, and not a board­er suc­ceed­ed in reach­ing the decks. The strug­gle con­tin­ued for near­ly three-​quar­ters of an hour, af­ter which the British again drew off. Two boats filled with dead and dy­ing men, were cap­tured by the Amer­icans, the un­hurt sur­vivors leap­ing over­board and swim­ming ashore. The British re­port showed, that in these two at­tacks there were about one hun­dred and forty of the en­emy killed, and one hun­dred and thir­ty wound­ed. The Amer­icans had lost on­ly two killed and sev­en wound­ed, but the ship was left in no con­di­tion for fu­ture de­fense. Many of the guns were dis­mount­ed, and the Long Tom, which had been the main­stay of the de­fense, was cap­sized. Cap­tain Reid and his of­fi­cers worked with the ut­most en­er­gy through the night, try­ing to fit the ves­sel for a re­new­al of the com­bat in the morn­ing, but at three o'clock he was called ashore by a note from the Amer­ican con­sul. Here he was in­formed that the Por­tuguese Gov­er­nor had made a per­son­al ap­peal to the British com­man­der for a ces­sa­tion of the at­tack, but that it had been re­fused, with the state­ment that the ves­sel would be de­stroyed by can­non-​fire from the British ships in the morn­ing. Against an at­tack of this sort it was, of course, fu­tile for the “Gen­er­al Arm­strong” to at­tempt to of­fer de­fense, and ac­cord­ing­ly Cap­tain Reid land­ed his men with their per­son­al ef­fects, and soon af­ter the British be­gan fire in the morn­ing, scut­tled the ship and aban­doned her. He led his men in­to the in­te­ri­or, seized on an aban­doned con­vent, and for­ti­fy­ing it, pre­pared to re­sist cap­ture. No at­tempt, how­ev­er, was made to pur­sue him, the British com­man­der con­tent­ing him­self with the de­struc­tion of the pri­va­teer. For near­ly a week the British ships were de­layed in the har­bor, bury­ing their dead and mak­ing re­pairs. When they reached New Or­leans, the army which they had been sent to reen­force, had met Jack­son on the plains of Chal­mette, and had been de­feat­ed. The price paid for the “Gen­er­al Arm­strong” was, per­haps, the heav­iest of the war. The British com­man­der seemed to ap­pre­ci­ate this fact, for ev­ery ef­fort was made to keep the news of the bat­tle from be­com­ing known in Eng­land, and when com­plete con­ceal­ment was no longer pos­si­ble, an of­fi­cial re­port was giv­en out that min­imized the British loss, mag­ni­fied the num­ber of the Amer­icans, and to­tal­ly mis-​stat­ed the facts bear­ing on the vi­ola­tion of the neu­tral­ity of the Por­tuguese port. Cap­tain Reid, how­ev­er, was made a hero by his coun­try­men. A Por­tuguese ship took him and his crew to Amelia Is­land, whence they made their way to New York. Pough­keep­sie vot­ed him a sword. Rich­mond cit­izens gave him a com­pli­men­ta­ry din­ner, at which were drunk such toasts as: “The pri­vate cruis­ers of the Unit­ed States--whose in­tre­pid­ity has pierced the en­emy's chan­nels and beard­ed the li­on in his den”; “Neu­tral Ports--when­ev­er the tyrants of the ocean dare to in­vade these sanc­tu­ar­ies, may they meet with an 'Es­sex' and an 'Arm­strong'”; and “Cap­tain Reid--his val­or has shed a blaze of renown up­on the char­ac­ter of our sea­men, and won for him­self a lau­rel of eter­nal bloom.” The news­pa­pers of the times rang with eu­lo­gies of Reid, and anec­dotes of his sea­far­ing ex­pe­ri­ences. But af­ter all, as Mc­Mas­ter fine­ly says in his his­to­ry: “The finest com­pli­ment of all was the ef­fort made in Eng­land to keep the de­tails of the bat­tle from the pub­lic, and the false re­port of the British com­man­der.”

In fi­nal­ly es­ti­mat­ing the ef­fect up­on the Amer­ican for­tunes in the War of 1812, of the pri­va­teers and their work, many fac­tors must be tak­en in­to con­sid­er­ation. At first sight it would seem that a sys­tem which gave the ser­vices of five hun­dred ships and their crews to the task of an­noy­ing the British, and in­flict­ing dam­age up­on their com­merce with­out cost to the Amer­ican Gov­ern­ment, must be whol­ly ad­van­ta­geous. We have al­ready seen the loss­es in­flict­ed up­on British com­merce by our pri­va­teers re­flect­ed in the rapid­ly in­creas­ing cost of ma­rine in­sur­ance. While the statis­tics in the pos­ses­sion of the Gov­ern­ment are not com­plete, they show that twen­ty-​five hun­dred ves­sels at least were cap­tured dur­ing the War of 1812 by these pri­vate­ly-​owned cruis­ers, and there can be no shad­ow of a doubt that the loss in­flict­ed up­on British mer­chants, and the con­stant state of ap­pre­hen­sion for the safe­ty of their ves­sels in which they were kept, very ma­te­ri­al­ly aid­ed in ex­tend­ing among them a will­ing­ness to see peace made on al­most any terms.

But this is the oth­er side of the sto­ry: The prime pur­pose of the pri­va­teer was to make mon­ey for its own­ers, its of­fi­cers, and its crew. The whole de­sign and spir­it of the call­ing was mer­ce­nary. It in­flict­ed dam­age on the en­emy, but on­ly in­ci­den­tal­ly to earn­ing div­idends for its par­tic­ipants. If Gov­ern­ment cruis­ers had cap­tured twen­ty-​five hun­dred British ves­sels, those ves­sels would have been lost to the en­emy for­ev­er. But the pri­va­teer, seek­ing gains, tried to send them in­to port, how­ev­er dan­ger­ous such a voy­age might be, and ac­cord­ing­ly, rather more than a third of them were re­cap­tured by the en­emy. We may note here in pass­ing, that one rea­son why the so-​called Con­fed­er­ate pri­va­teers dur­ing our own Civ­il War, did an amount of dam­age so dis­pro­por­tion­ate to their num­bers, was that they were not, in fact, pri­va­teers at all. They were com­mis­sioned by the Con­fed­er­ate Gov­ern­ment to in­flict the great­est pos­si­ble amount of in­jury up­on north­ern com­merce, and ac­cord­ing­ly, when Semmes or Maf­fitt cap­tured a Unit­ed States ves­sel, he burned it on the spot. There was no ques­tion of prof­it in­volved in the ser­vice of the “Al­aba­ma,” the “Flori­da,” or the “Shenan­doah,” and they have been called pri­va­teers in our his­to­ries, main­ly be­cause North­ern writ­ers have been loath to con­cede, to what they called a rebel gov­ern­ment, the right to equip and com­mis­sion reg­ular men-​of-​war.

But to re­turn to the Amer­ican pri­va­teers of 1812. While, as I have point­ed out, there were many in­stances of enor­mous gains be­ing made, it is prob­able that the busi­ness as a whole, like all gam­bling busi­ness­es as a whole, was not prof­itable. Some ships made lucky voy­ages, but there is on record in the Navy De­part­ment a list of three hun­dred ves­sels that took not one sin­gle prize in the whole year of 1813. The records of Congress show that, as a whole, the busi­ness was not re­mu­ner­ative, be­cause there were con­stant ap­peals from peo­ple in­ter­est­ed. In re­sponse to this im­por­tu­ni­ty, Congress at one time paid a boun­ty of twen­ty-​five dol­lars a head for all pris­on­ers tak­en. At oth­er times it re­duced the im­port du­ties on car­goes cap­tured and land­ed by pri­va­teers. In­deed, it is es­ti­mat­ed by a care­ful stu­dent, that the loss­es to the Gov­ern­ment in the way of di­rect ex­pen­di­tures and re­mis­sion of rev­enues through the pri­va­teer­ing sys­tem, amount­ed to a sum suf­fi­cient to have kept twen­ty sloops of war on the sea through­out the pe­ri­od of hos­til­ities, and there is lit­tle doubt that such ves­sels could have ac­tu­al­ly ac­com­plished more in the di­rec­tion of ha­rass­ing the en­emy than the pri­va­teers. A very grave ob­jec­tion to the pri­va­teer­ing sys­tem, how­ev­er, was the fact that the promise of prof­it to sailors en­gaged in it was so great, that all ad­ven­tur­ous men flocked in­to the ser­vice, so that it be­came al­most im­pos­si­ble to main­tain our army or to man our ships. I have al­ready quot­ed George Wash­ing­ton's ob­jec­tions to the prac­tise dur­ing the Rev­olu­tion. Dur­ing the War of 1812, some of our best frigates were com­pelled to sail half manned, while it is even de­clared that the loss of the “Chesa­peake” to the “Shan­non” was large­ly due to the fact that her crew were dis­con­tent­ed and prepar­ing, as their time of ser­vice was near­ly up, to quit the Gov­ern­ment ser­vice for pri­va­teer­ing. In a his­to­ry of Mar­ble­head, one of the fa­mous old sea­far­ing towns of Mas­sachusetts, it is de­clared that of nine hun­dred men of that town who took part in the war, fifty-​sev­en served in the army, one hun­dred and twen­ty en­tered the navy, while sev­en hun­dred and twen­ty-​six shipped on the pri­va­teers. These fig­ures af­ford a fair in­di­ca­tion of the way in which the reg­ular branch­es of the ser­vice suf­fered by the com­pe­ti­tion of the sys­tem of le­gal­ized pira­cy.

**Tran­scriber's Notes: Page 180: Punc­tu­ation in di­ary nor­mal­ized. Page 184: change Washin­gon to Wash­ing­ton Page 185: changed di­cov­er to dis­cov­er Page 186: changed Por­tugese to Por­tuguese