PDF Daybook Reload-Volume 8-Issue 4-PDF Reload

1

The Daybook

HRNM Staff

Rear Adm. David ArchitzelCommander, Navy Region, Mid-Atlantic

The Daybook is an authorized publication ofthe Hampton Roads Naval Museum (HRNM). Itscontents do not necessarily reflect the official viewof the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense,the U.S. Navy, or the U.S. Marine Corps and do notimply endorsement thereof. Book reviews are solelythe opinion of the reviewer.

The HRNM is operated and funded by Commander,Navy Region, Mid-Atlantic. The museum is dedicated tothe study of 225 years of naval history in the HamptonRoads region. It is also responsible for the historicinterpretation of the battleship Wisconsin.

The museum is open daily. Call for information onWisconsin’s hours of operations. Admission to the museumand Wisconsin are free. The Daybook’s purpose is toeducate and inform readers on historical topics andmuseum related events. It is written by the staff andvolunteers of the museum.

Questions or comments can be directed to theHampton Roads Naval Museum editor. The Daybookcan be reached at 757-322-2993, by fax at 757-445-1867, e-mail at [email protected], or writeThe Daybook, Hampton Roads Naval Museum, OneWaterside Drive, Suite 248, Norfolk, VA 23510-1607. The museum can be found on the World WideWeb at http://www.hrnm.navy.mil.

The Daybook is published quarterly with acirculation of 2,000. Contact the editor for a freesubscription.

About The Daybook and the Museum

Director Becky PoulliotCurator Joe JudgeEducation Specialist Bob MattesonExhibits Specialist Marta NelsonMuseum Tech./Librarian Ofelia ElboEditor of The Daybook Gordon CalhounArchitectural Historian Michael TaylorBattleship WisconsinOperations Manager Capt. Mary Mosier, USN (Ret.)Special Events/Education Kathryn ShaffnerVolunteer Coordinator Thomas DandesPublic Relations Jared MyersHRNM OIC GMC (SW) Keith RyanCeremonies/LCPO NCC (SW) Lisa RobinsonGraphic Design LIC(SW/AW) Michael Roberts LI3 Darrell MedinaEducation Assistant OS1 (SW/AW) Leroy BrownDirector, HRNHF Rear Adm. Byron Tobin,USN (Ret.)

In This Issue...

Features

The Director’s Column................2

Book Reviews..............................10

The Museum Sage....12

Vol. 8 Issue 4

Cover Illustration: On the cover is the USSPortsmouth at the Norfolk Navy Yard in 1872.Much of the damage caused to the Yard by theCivil War had yet to be repaired. Adding to theYard’s woes was a neglectful administration andcharges of corruption. The region’s mostimportant military and social institution suffereddearly throughout a decade that many navalhistorians refer to as the Navy’s “Dark Ages.”

Mad Jack Percival: Legend of theOld Navy. By James H. Ellis.Reviewed by Ira R. Hanna

Fighting Sail on Lake Huron andGeorgian Bay: The War of 1812and Its Aftermath by Barry M.Gough. Reviewed by Lt. Cdmr.Mark Tunnicliffe

In Search of a Patriotto Honor

Cold War Exhibit in the Works...........................................5

The Norfolk Navy Yard During the Navy’s Dark Ages......6

Improvements on the Museum’s Web Page........................4

It’s Been an Honor

2

The Daybook

The Director’s Columnby Becky Poulliot

Vol. 8 Issue 4

Itís Been an Honor

100 hour awards:Andy Tingle, John Wyld, WellandShoop, Richard Schroeder, HarryRiley, Bill Reiss, Mike Hodgis, KenzyJoyner, Reginald Henry, James Jenkins,Frank Moore, Arthur Rebman, CurtBelile, Bill Clarke, Tom Gonzalez, EricDaw, Peter Bielenburg, James Ripley.

250 hour awards:Sonny Wright, Bill Kinne, SteveKingsley, Allen Hilliard, ReginaldHenry, Robert Henn, Jane Frieden, KenWiley, Pat Spear, Arthur Rebman,Harry Raney, Fred Bariteau, BeverlyBachman.

500 hour awards:George Stuart, Sterling Yoder, MarvinRosenthal, Carrol Morgan, JohnJohnston, Jim Hornshaw, AndyGrynewytsch, Lloyd Belperain.

750 hour awards:Joe Mosier, Glenn Pendelton, DavidPage, Jim Owen, Eugene Kanter, BobFall, James Curtin, Fred Bouwman,A.J. Benson.

Docent Honor Roll1000 hour awards:Bill Wagner, Wyndham Curles, JoeCurtis, Rick Bailey, John Peters.

1250 hour awards:John Peters, Ed Burk, Ben Benzel.

1500 hour award:Ben Benzel.

1750 hour awards:Eleanor Dipeppe, Harrell Forrest.

2500 hour award:Bob Comet.

3500 hour award:Al Petrich.

4000 hour award:John Lewis.

n February 28th, the HamptonRoads Naval HistoricalFoundation hosted a farewell party

for its Executive Director Major Gen.Dennis J. Murphy. It was a first-ratesendoff befitting the man who has spentmore than 13 years supporting the HamptonRoads Naval Museum. The Museum hasexperienced change unimagined in 1989,such as a volunteer force of 150 strong,attendance of ½ million per year, an activespeakers’ bureau, a popular program forschoolchildren, and of course one of thebest military museum galleries anywhere.

What started out on Naval StationNorfolk in 1989 was a museum staff ofthree, augmented by a few temporarymilitary personnel, and General Murphy.All of the Museum’s assets today in termsof the galleries, educational programs andvolunteer efforts have received directassistance from General Murphy. It wasthe Hampton Roads Naval HistoricalFoundation that underwrote the relocationof the Museum’s exhibits to Nauticus, andis now paying for the Wisky Walk exhibit.The Foundation sponsors the annualvolunteer appreciation dinner, and hasunderwritten or administered the fundingof a number of our educational services toinclude the lecture series and theimplementation of the Hunter, Hunted, andthe Home Front middle school program.General Murphy has been in the forefrontof all of this action. He has been a friendto all of us here, and a mentor. He askedthat I share this letter with the staff andvolunteers.

“We’ve been together on a muchlonger cruise than I had ever planned forand now it is time for me to hit the beachand pursue the next phase in life.

We started over thirteen years ago. Inthat time, we met and overcame a greatmany challenges. I very much appreciateall your assistance along the way. Thereare many more challenges in the future andI wish you all every success in tackling

them.I am particularly in awe of the

dedication and contributions of all thevolunteers. You can be very proud of thelarge part you have played in theaccomplishments that have been achieved,and you will be vital to the successfulattainment of future goals and objectives.You have my sincere thanks, and wishes fora bright future.

Again, many thanks for all yourkindness and good luck in the years to come.We’ll be watching your continuingprogress.Sincerely,Major General Dennis J. Murphy USMC(Ret.)”

We recently honored our volunteerdocents for their service in 2002 at ourannual docent appreciation dinner. Thisyear, the docents logged more than 19,000hours of service in the museum and onboard Battleship Wisconsin. We issued 108awards to docents that had reached a certainnumber of hours of service. Of the awardsissued, we gave 31 awards for service inthe 1,000 to 4,000 hours range.

3

The Daybook Vol. 8 Issue 4

Rear Adm. Byron ìJakeî Tobin (Ret.) Takes Overas Executive Director of Museumís Foundation

The Museumís World War IIProgram a Huge Success

he Hampton Roads Naval HistoricalFoundation (HRNHF) is now undernew leadership after the resignation

of retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. DennisJ. Murphy, who had been the Foundation’sExecutive Director since October 1989. InFebruary, the President of the Foundation,William J. Jonak, Jr., appointed retired RearAdm. Byron “Jake” Tobin as Murphy’ssuccessor.

“We’re very sorry to see Gen. Murphygo. He’s been a member of our museumfamily for 13 years and will be greatly missed”noted Hampton Roads Naval MuseumDirector Elizabeth Poulliot. “Gen. Murphyhas been a wonderful director for thefoundation and one of the museum’s biggestsupporters.”

However, Tobin is no stranger to theHampton Roads Naval Museum.

Tobin comes to the foundation having

been closely related to the museum’soperations in the past during his tenure asCommander, Naval Base, Norfolk.

Tobin, a graduate of Naval WarCollege in Newport, RI, holds a degree fromthe School of Finance and Commerce of theUniversity of Pennsylvania in addition to aMaster of Science degree in InternationalAffairs from George Washington University.

In his early Navy career, Tobin was anaviator, piloting such planes as the P-5MMarlin and the P-3 Orion.

As Commander, Naval Base, Norfolk,Tobin played a vital role to bring the museumto its current location within the Nauticusfacility.

“I’m looking forward to continuing toimprove the foundation and our ability tosupport the museum,” Tobin said.

“Having worked for Adm. Tobin in thepast, I’m confident that the foundation is in

good hands,” added Poulliot. “Adm. Tobinis the embodiment of a great leader. He ischarismatic, energetic and willing to take onnew challenges. I look forward to his visionof how our organizations will grow together.”

The Hampton Roads Naval HistoricalFoundation supports the museum primarilyin the funding of exhibits and educationalprograms. In August 1991, the Foundationpledged $500,000 to pay for the museum’sexhibits in Nauticus. That pledge was paid infull in March 1999. In June 2001, theFoundation pledged $150,000 to pay for thecost of the design, fabrication and installationof the Wisky Walk exhibit in the corridorleading to the battleship Wisconsin. As ofOctober 2002, $75,000 had been paid towardthat pledge. Including these two majorprojects, the Foundation has provided nearly$800,000 in support of the museum’sprograms since October 1989.

One part of the “Hunted, Hunter, and the Home Front,”teaches students about the Submarine Force duringWorld War II and some of the challenges it faced.(Photo by Gordon Calhoun)

The second part of the program introduces students tothe Battleship Wisconsin. The third part of theprogram, a module about the American home frontduring World War II, takes place at the MacArthurMemorial. (Photo by Gordon Calhoun)

he Hunter, Hunted and the HomeFront is meeting its third year ofexistence with great success. This

spring over 1,500 students are scheduledto participate. The program is seeing anincrease in Peninsula, Williamsburg, andprivate school registration in addition to theSouthside schools that have traditionallyparticipated. Many teachers are choosing

the Hampton Roads Naval Museum as theirspring field trip for the third year in a row.Word of this program is spreading fast.

The program, a collaborative effortbetween HRNM and the MacArthurMemorial, is designed for fifth graders andmiddle-schoolers studying World War II.Students are greeted with a 45-minuteinteractive tour of Battleship Wisconsinwhere they learn about her design, missionand actions during the war. They then takepart in the “Up Periscope” submarinesimulation activity in the museum gallery’snew education space, The Wardroom. Atthe MacArthur Memorial, a guided tour ofthe memorial gallery is followed by aclassroom activity that provides insight intothe mobilization of people of all ages onthe American home front.

HRNM, in conjunction with theMacArthur Memorial and the Children’sMuseum of Virginia in Portsmouth, is therecipient of a portion of a substantial U.S.

Department of Education grant awarded tothe Virginia Beach Public School system.This will provide buses for all VBPSseventh grade students to participate in anexpanded version of the Hunter, Huntedand the Home Front program to include anew segment on the WWII-era NorfolkNaval Shipyard at the Children’s Museum.

Teachers interested in theprogram should contact Kathryn Shaffnerat 757-322-3108 or [email protected].

4


Museum AddsNew Featuresto Web Site

Go towww.hrnm.navy.mil

to see the new additions

he Hampton Roads Naval Museumis pleased to announce majorimprovements to its web site. In

cooperation with Commander, Navy RegionMid-Atlantic and VERSAR, a NorthernVirginia-based environmental services

consulting company, the museum hasfocused web site improvements on themuseum’s architectural heritage program.

Some of the improvements include aneasier to use interface, an increased numberof photographs of historic buildings atNaval Station Norfolk, primers about thepreservation program and historicpreservation as a discipline, and ready-to-use teacher’s lesson plans for use in theclassroom.

Additionally, there is an innovativeinteractive map of the historic districts at

Naval Station Norfolk. A new section ofon-line exhibits about McClure Field nowexists, structures at Naval Air StationNorfolk, and the 1907 JamestownExposition and the buildings associatedwith the fair.

The web site is constantly beingchanged and updated with new pictures andinformation. Interested visitors can viewthem at www.hrnm.navy.mil. For generalquestions about the program, contactMichael Taylor at 757-445-8574.

New Museum CD Releasehe Museum is planning the releaseof its fourth compact disc. This newCD contains digital copies of the

Sea Bag, the Norfolk Naval TrainingStation’s (NTS) newspaper, during theWorld War II years. It will also have asearch engine allowing users to easily findrelevant topics.

The Sea Bag was the official weeklynewspaper for NTS and contained articlesabout the daily events at the base. Whileit did cover many world events, thenewspaper is a priceless resource for

researchers.Other Museum CDs include: Drawn

from History: A Visual Image Collection, adigitized collection of ships, ships’ plans,documents of the Fifth Naval District, andarchitectural drawings of buildings at NavalStation Norfolk; Battle of the Atlantic, ahistory of the battle as told by documentsfrom the National Archives; and Images ofHistory, a collection of some of our mostrequested photographs.

Those interested in receiving a CD freeof charge should contact the museum.

5


Wisconsin Visitor InformationGeneral Information757-322-2987www.hrnm.navy.milVolunteer [email protected]

Nauticus’ Wisconsin Exhibits757-664-1000www.nauticus.orgjenny.burge@norfolk.govWisconsin Project PartnersHampton Roads Naval Historical Foundationwww.hrnm.navy.mil/hrnhf

USS Wisconsin Associationwww.usswisconsin.org

Battleship Wisconsin Foundationwww.battleshipwisconsin.org

Honor and [email protected] Information757-322-2993 or [email protected]

Museum Begins Work onNew Exhibit on the Cold War

he invasion of South Korea, theclosing off of Eastern Europe, andthe victory of the communists in

China led the National Security Council tobelieve that communists posed a gravenational security risk and that a future worldwar was possible. Local Naval units wereplaced on the front lines of the Cold Warconducting the daily patrols of far offstations.

Titled “National Emergency,” theHampton Roads Naval Museum is currentlyworking on a new permanent exhibit forits Modern Navy gallery to highlight theparticipation of local naval units.Specifically, the exhibit will focus on theKorean and Vietnam Wars; the role of shipsand submarines intelligence gathering, witha special emphasis on USS Liberty(ATGR-5); the Cuban Missile Crisis; and

the Bay of Pigsoperation.

We are currentlyseeking artifacts fromveterans who were onNorfolk-based shipsbetween 1950 and1988 that participatedin these operations.Some of the ships wehave identified asfitting this criteriaare: USS Enterprise(CVN-65), USS CoralSea (CV-43), USSEssex (CVS-8), USSRandolph (CVS-15), USS Newport News(CA-148), USS Liberty, USS Norfolk (DL-1), USS Lapon (SSN-621), USS Scorpion(SSN-589), and any destroyer from TaskForce Alpha or warship involved in theCuban Missile Crisis quarantine. We alsoplan to include items from the Little Creek-based SEAL Team 2. The list is far fromcomplete. We encourage veterans to contactus.

The museum is also planning an exhibitabout local naval units’ participation in thecurrent ongoing war on terrorism. Calleither the curator Joe Judge at 757-322-

2984 or Gordon Calhoun at 757-322-2993to find out more information about eitherone of these exhibits that are scheduled forinstallation later this year.

6

The Daybook Vol.8 Issue 4

Norfolk continued on page 7

The Norfolk Navy Yard During theNavyís Dark Ages

Mathew Brady took this photo of the Norfolk Navy Yard in 1864 showing thedamage caused first by Union forces in 1861, and later by Confederate forces in1862. “Reconstruction” was slow as Congress was reluctant to spend anythingbeyond the minimum necessary to keep the yard open. (HRNM photo)

The Region’s Most Important InstitutionDuring the Navy’s Worst Timesby Gordon Calhoun

hen historians speak ofReconstruction, they discuss notonly the physical rebuilding of

the South from the ashes of the AmericanCivil War, but also the attempts to bringthe two sides back together as one nation.In Hampton Roads, the Norfolk Navy Yardhas always been one of the most importantsocial institutions for the region. It is asource of great pride to the local economyproviding thousands of jobs over the yearsas well as being a vital piece of the nation’snational security infrastructure.

During the Civil War, the yard wasconsidered valuable enough that both sidessought to deny it to their opponent. At thebeginning of the war, the Navy attemptedto destroy the facilities of the yard only tohave a large section of it captured by localforces. When the U.S. Army took Norfolkin 1862, the Confederates also attemptedto torch the yard.

In both attempts, the ever-valuablestone dry dock went unharmed despite aconcerted effort to destroy it. But many ofthe other buildings, such as the machineshops and timber sheds, were destroyed.Only five brick buildings and the dry dockremained undamaged. After receiving acondition report, Acting Rear Adm. S. P.Lee put it quite bluntly to Secretary of theNavy Gideon Welles, “It has been burneddown and is a mere wreck.”

Lee was among the first to suggest,however, that despite the condition of theyard (technically called the “U.S. NavyYard, Norfolk” at the time), it still wasusable and extremely important to the wareffort. He commented, “If this burned andblockaded yard was in full repair, it isobviously advantageous to the publicinterest.”

After the war was over, Welles echoeda similar theme to the President andCongress. During the earliest days ofReconstruction, he recognized not only the

importance of the yardto the Navy’soperations, but also thefacility’s vitality as asocial institution. Inhis 1866 report tothe President, hecommented, “Theyards at Norfolk and atPensacola are asessential to the Navyand the country aseither of the yards atthe north, and in the event of a foreign warwe could better dispense with one of theyards north of the Chesapeake than witheither of these. The rebellion has passedaway, the States are parts of the Union, andthe establishments which are to berenovated are national in their character, andof general interests to all.”

Welles would repeat his plea for moremoney to renovate the yard in 1867 and1868, but Congress allocated little and hissuggestions went largely ignored. Norfolkwas not being singled out by Congress orby the Executive Branch, but rather was avictim of external circumstances. The yearsbetween the end of the Civil War in 1865and the construction of the first steel hulledwarships in the early 1880s have beendescribed by many naval historians as the“Dark Ages” of the U.S. Navy. It has beengiven such a gloomy title due to the suddenlack of interest in a military force that in1865 was one of the largest, most powerfulwar machines in the world. In one of thelargest drawdowns in naval history, theNavy went from a force of several hundredwarships to just a few dozen in a matter ofmonths.

Adding to this drastic cutback,Congress allocated only a small amount ofmoney for new ships and facilities and wasvery reckless in the money that it didappropriate. There was little desire among

many of the senior officers and civilianleadership to pursue new and innovativetechnologies that had been vigorouslypursued by both sides during the previouswar. Many naval authorities openlyworried that the Europeans navies werealready significantly better equipped forany future conflict.

Charles Dana, editor of the Democrat-leaning New York Sun, claimed to have anexplanation for this national tragedy:government corruption. In a series of“investigative” articles published in 1872,Dana attempted to make the case that thenew administration of Ulysses S. Grant waswasting, even stealing, public moneyallocated to ship repair and construction.He also claimed that construction materialsand ships’ stores were improperly boughtand of substandard quality. While it waswell known that Dana was an arch politicalopponent of the Grant administration andno other newspaper corroborated hisclaims, Dana created enough of a stir toforce Congress to open a specialinvestigation into the operations of theGovernment run Navy yards.

Two Congressmen and two senators(three Republicans and one Democrat)formed the committee shortly after Danamade his charges public. The hearings didnot go on very long and by a three to one

7


The sloop USS Portsmouth is shown here tied up at the Norfolk Navy Yard, 1872. Until Congress authorized Naval Operating Base Hampton Roads in 1917, the yardcontinued to serve as the regional naval station to the Navy’s North Atlantic Squadron despite being under funded and under appreciated. (National Archives photo)

Norfolk’s stone dry dock continued to be among the mostimportant pieces of infrastructure in the fleet and made the yard’spresence that much more valuable in the 1870s as new ones werevery expensive. Shown here is an 1852 drawing of the dry dockwith the mammoth 120-gun ship-of-the-line Pennsylvania on theways. (1852 engraving by Charles B. Stuart)

vote, the committee cleared the Navy ofany wrong doing.

This is not to say the Department gotoff easy. The chairman of the committee,Michigan Republican Congressman AustinBlair, had a few scathing words for theDepartment. Blair, a charter member ofthe Michigan Republican Party, was oneof a growing number of “Liberal”Republicans who were concerned that theGrant administration’s governance was indire need of reform and openly broke withthe party on many issues. He dissentedfrom the majority and wrote, “Vast sumsof money have been spent and still theNavy shows no sign of improvement. Itssituation furnishes the most unanswerablecharge against the administration of theSecretary. It is barnacled all over.”

The “secretary” Blair mentioned wasSecretary George Robeson, one of the leasteffective Secretaries ever to be placed incharge of the Department. A lawyer bytrade, Robeson was a political supporterof Grant and exchanged in some veryshady business practices. Naval historianRobert Albion discovered that Robesonmoved all of the Navy’s accounts used topay for overseas operations from a wellestablished and connected Britishaccounting firm to an American firm onthe verge of bankruptcy that had no officesin foreign ports. Despite his reputation, the1872 investigation cleared him and theDepartment for the time being.

Another explanation for Norfolk’sstate of disrepair was a change in nationalpriorities. Department reports show thatthe Navy had decided to concentrate itsefforts in the new frontier on the PacificCoast. Specifically, the Departmentinvested close to $3 million of construction

Norfolk continued from page 6money over three years into the SanFrancisco-based Mare Island Navy Yard.Despite Robeson’s request for “liberalappropriations,” the Hampton Roads-basedfacility was left with the crumbs of about $84thousand a year over the same time span.While Mare Island received a new dry dock,Norfolk was allowed to rebuild two newtimber sheds and keep existing buildings ata minimum operational level. One of thefew bright spots, literally, was the installationof a new street light system fueled by coalgas.

There was talk, and even somepreliminarily plans drawn, of buildinga special fresh water basin nearthe Great Dismal Swampfor decommissioned warships,specifically the monitors. Many ofthe Navy’s ironclads had been laid upin the James River in order to removethe wooden hulled ships from saltwater. Finding this spot inconvenient,it was thought that if a fresh waterbasin were built south of Norfolk, theironclads could be readied for warmore quickly. The project, like manyother ideas to improve Norfolk, wasnever funded.

This is not to say the yard wasdead. Norfolk continued to be usednot only as a repair facility, but alsoas the region’s naval station. Longbefore anyone considered buildingthe present day naval station atSewells Point, Norfolk was referredto “Naval Station Norfolk” becausethe yard was the base of operationsfor the North Atlantic Squadron. Thesquadron consisted of eight woodensteamers and two monitors and wasactive in peace time patrols and

operations in the West Indies, Europe, andSouth America. Among the manyoperations, the steam tug Mayflower’s tripto Mexico was one of the most notable.Mayflower left Norfolk in 1872 to conductsurvey work on a possible canal that wouldconnect the Atlantic and Pacific. The yardalso served as a base for ships transferringto other squadrons around the world andassisted the North Atlantic Squadron inwatching over the “ghost fleet” ofdecommissioned ironclads in the JamesRiver.


8


The squadron and the yard stoppedroutine duties due to the crisis caused bythe capture of Virginius in 1873. The shipwas a blockade runner commanded by anAmerican with a mixed Anglo-Americancrew. The Spanish caught her running gunsinto Cuba and began to deliver swift andbrutal punishment on the crew. The Navywas ordered to mobilize a squadron in KeyWest in preparation for a possible war.

There was a flurry of activity in theregion when the mobilization orders wentout. “CUBA, OUR VOICE IS STILL FORWAR” and “What Our Navy Will Have toHammer At,” the Norfolk Landmarkproclaimed in separate headlines. Thefounder and editor of the Landmark, James

In reality, the Norfolk-built USS Galena was a brand new vessel. Officially, however, the Navy reported toCongress that she was the former ironclad USS Galena from the Civil War and that she was being “repaired,”so that the Department could spread appropriations out over several years. This lengthy construction timebecame a subject of several heated political debates. (Naval Historical Center photo)

Barron Hope, noted the many advantagesof the yard and how it was poised to be thecenter of activity for an upcoming conflict.Indeed, there was more activity at the yardthan anyone had seen since 1862. Norfolkyard workers removed the monitorMahopac from the James River torecommission her. They also awaited thearrival of the monitor Manhattan and steamsloop Powhatan from Philadelphia foradditional preparations.

Additionally, the newspapers reportedseveral 11-inch and nine-inch guns with guncarriages were being made ready andworkers were busy converting the screwtug Mayflower into an armed dispatch boat.There were four sailing warships, includingthe sloop-of-war Constellation, in ordinaryand no one thought any were capable ofserving again. Then one morning, thenewspapers reported that the yard was“more lively and somewhat more warlike.”

They announced that work had begun onrecommissioning the sail frigate Savannahand even the 60 year old Macedonian,which had not seen active service in manyyears.

The crisis was settled despitenewspaper predictions. After timelyintervention from British warships, Spainagreed to pay reparations to the UnitedStates and Britain and the President orderedthe U.S. Navy to stand down. The crisisserved as a wake up call to many that theNavy needed to be reformed and properlyfunded to better its readiness. Despiteindications that a fleet was about to descendupon Cuba, the Navy had serious troublepreparing the fleet. Locally, of all the

warships allegedly being made ready,Mahopac was the only warship to besuccessfully recommissioned and sent to thefront lines.

Hope presented his own explanationfor what he saw locally. Hampton Roads’literary champion wrote, “While prodigioussums of money have been expended by thegovernment in the most profligate manner,the naval establishment of the country haslanguished for want of the necessaryappropriation. At [Norfolk], there are signsof activity, but the vindictive policy of theNavy Department has been to ignore thisdock-yard, as a punishment for our activeparticipation in the struggle for Southernindependence.”

Hope expressed his feelings in anotherway when his paper published anangry poem in one issue condemningReconstruction, the Radical wing of theRepublican Party, and the perceived attitude

of the current administration towardsHampton Roads. Entitled “I am anEmployee of the Yard,” one verse read:

“They may violate orders theGovernment has made

In extorting one hard earned day’spay,

From each man to defray,The cost and the charges of some

popinjay.”

While Hope’s conspiracyproclamations may have sold newspapers,the real problems at Norfolk were quiteserious and went deeper than Radicalsretaliating against former rebels. First,employee job security at the yard wasshaky. Workers would be hired for shortperiods of time, only to be laid off forseveral days due to a lack of appropriations.

Secondly, while Congress didauthorize some new ships in the 1870s, theconstruction of the ships was conducted ina highly questionable manner. The first setwas the Galena-class steam sloops, whichthe Navy officially classified not as newships, but as “rebuilt” version of ships withthe same name in order to stretchappropriations over a long period of time.The second set was the Enterprise-classsteam gunboats.

In Norfolk, the yard received thecontract to “rebuild” Galena and later tobuild the gunboat Alliance from theEnterprise authorization. Both ships tookseveral more months to build than originallyplanned, and were largely obsolete whenfinished. Predictions were made during theVirginius crisis that Galena would belaunched by the end of 1873. Instead, shewas not launched until 1876. One ship, theGalena-class Quinnebaug, according tosome historical sources was “rebuilt” inNorfolk, but other sources say Philadelphia.

In the 44th Congress (1875-77), theDemocrats picked up over 100 seats, givingthem a clear majority. Now in power, theDemocrats set their sights on a fullinvestigation of the Department to find outwhat was going on.

Along with questions about shipconstruction, Congress also wanted answerson the practice of political kickbacks andpatronage. It was charged that in order to

Norfolk continued from page 7


9


Norfolk continued from page 8get a job at Norfolk, one had to pay a day’swages to the local political party. AsHope’s poem showed, the practice hadbeen going on for years despite severallaws making it illegal. The committee’sgoal was to answer the question “What isthe cause of such evils?” Unlike the 1872investigation, Congress tasked the entireCommittee on Naval Affairs to look intothe matter. The committee looked at eachNavy yard individually and calledeveryone to testify, from SecretaryRobeson and the commandants of the yardsdown to the 12 year old waterboy who waspaid $1.02 a day. Though the problemswith the Navy were present at every yard,Norfolk was considered to have the mostserious issues and the committee made itthe central part of the investigation.

The committee first noticed that in themonths leading up to the Novemberelections between 1872 and 1875, thenumber of workers at Norfolk skyrocketedonly to drop off after the election was over.Specifically, the committee charged thatthe work on Galena was done, not for thebenefit of national security, but rather as away to employ 1,000 potential voters.“When any political purpose is to beaccomplished, as, for instance, at Norfolk,when an election is pending, the Galena, avessel that has been nominally undergoingrepairs for the last three to four years, isordered by the chief of the bureau atWashington to be worked upon,” thecommittee wrote.

The chairman of the local RepublicanParty was called to testify to this and to thecharge of kickbacks or patronage. In a shorttestimony, H.B. Nichols, who was also thepostmaster for Norfolk, denied anyknowledge of either practice. But Nicholswas contradicted by a long list of witnesses,including the foreman of the yard, the chief

former Naval constructor at Norfolk beforethe Civil War. The committee called himto answer questions about the quality of theyard’s work. It was Porter’s belief that theyard accepted substandard timber that wastoo small and of very poor quality.Furthermore, he stated, the wood wasallowed to sit out in the weather and rot.

In charge of Norfolk at the time ofinvestigation was Commodore ThomasHoldup Stevens, an officer that Hopedescribed as a “very pleasant, affablegentleman.” This investigation must havebeen quite humiliating for Stevens as he hadserved the U.S. Navy with the highest ofhonors during his forty plus years of service.During the Civil War, Stevens alwaysseemed to be stationed where the heaviestfighting occurred. He had fought in severalmajor campaigns during the war includinga short two-month stint as commandingofficer of USS Monitor. Additionally, hisfather fought along side Oliver HazardPerry at Lake Erie and three generations ofhis descendants would all serve in themilitary.

Stevens did his best to defend his yard’swork ethic. He stated that Alliance in

This is the Norfolk Navy Yard in 1872. Even though many suggestions were made to improve the yard in the1870s, the only three items built were two new timber sheds and a new coal-gas lighting system. Innovativeideas such as a new fresh water basin for decommissioned ships, new rail lines, and proper seawalls wereshelved. (National Archives photo)


Naval constructor, and several other skilledand unskilled laborers. All of them testifiedthat they were forced to give money to thelocal party in order to work and that it wasa well known system. Nichols’ counterpartin Portsmouth, a Mr. Clements, confessedthat he had knowledge of the practice, butdenied any personal involvement andclaimed renegade party members in thelower ranks were responsible.

Of all of the witnesses called, the mostfamous was probably John L. Porter,designer of the ironclad CSS Virginia and

Shown here is the USS Quinnebaug in Venice. It is not clear exactly where the 1870s ship was built. Somesources say the Navy built her at Philadelphia, while others state that she was built in Norfolk. (Library ofCongress photo)

particular was “a superb ship,” denied anycorruption or other inefficiencies at theyard, and disavowed any knowledge ofpolitical patronage. As for the Galenacontract, he simply stated that he used thenumber of workers assigned to him fromWashington.

Fortunately for Stevens, thebureaucratic system he worked underprovided plausible deniability and safetyfrom Congressional prosecution. TheNavy’s infamous “bureau” system gave the

10


Book Reviews

Barry M. Gough. Fighting Sail onLake Huron and Georgian Bay: TheWar of 1812 and Its Aftermath.Annapolis: Naval Institute Press,2002. 215 pages. $32.95.

Fighting Sail on Lake Huron andGeorgian Bay: The War of 1812and Its Aftermathby Barry M. GoughReviewed by Mark Tunnicliffe

lausewitz warned that war isunpredictable. Nowhere was thisdictum more evident than the War

of 1812 in which the pre-war expectationsof the principal combatants were turned ontheir ear. For the United States, the land warwas to be simply “a matter of marching”with Henry Clay opining that “... the militiaof Kentucky are alone competent to placeMontreal and Upper Canada at your feet.”At sea however, the U.S. Navy, comprisedof “... a few fir-built ships commanded bya handful of bastards and outlaws” wouldbe easy prey for the Royal Navy.

Things did not turn out that way. WhileAmerican attempts to take Montreal wereturned back by Imperial forces muchsmaller than their opponents, the naval

picture was reversed. The young U.S. Navytriumphed in single-frigate engagements atsea and on Lake Erie, Oliver Perry capturedthe entire British squadron.

That engagement, in 1813, changed thestrategic situation in Upper Canadaimmediately. Not only did Perry’s victoryleave Imperial land forces vulnerable to flankattack, but it also surrendered access to theUpper Lakes to the United States. Thispotential was immediately realized by theAmerican victory over Indian forces atMoraviantown while the U.S. freedom ofaction in the Upper Lakes promised to cut offthe fur trade based in the Michigan andWisconsin areas and the supply of goods thatBritain used to retain the loyalty of Indiantribes there.

How then, did the United States exploitthis opportunity to cut Imperial lines ofcommunication? That is the focus of BarryGough’s examination of the naval and

amphibious operations on Lake Huron andGeorgian Bay. A professor of history at WilfredLaurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, he isalso an avid yachtsman sailing a sloop based atPentanguishene on Georgian Bay. He blendsthese skills in his account of the confrontationson Lake Huron in 1814, exploiting hisyachtsman’s appreciation for the geography ofthe region and its influence on navigation. Hisaccount traces the American and Britishresponses to the revised situation on the UpperLakes, the impact on the strategy of both sides,and the British moves to secure alternate meansof communication with Lake Huron after thewar by developing a base at Pentanguishene.His well-balanced account, based on extensiveprimary sources drawn from Britain, Canada andthe United States, comes to the conclusion thatby and large, the United States fumbled theopportunity afforded by Perry’s success.

Commodore Sinclair, Perry’s relief on LakeErie, led an expedition to retakeMilchilimackinac Island (which dominates theentrance to Lake Michigan), destroy the Britishfur trading infrastructure, and eliminate residualImperial forces, but his dilatory approachresulted in missed opportunities and anembarrassing reversal of fortune.

Sinclair’s attempt to negateMilchilimackinac by cutting off suppliesthrough the destruction of the only British navalunit left on the Upper Lakes proved his undoing,for in blowing up HM schooner Nancy, Sinclairpermitted her crew to escape. Gough traces theremarkable expedition of Nancy’s commanderto collect reinforcements and, in a daring cuttingout expedition, capture both of the U.S.schooners left behind to blockadeMilchilimackinac. This action essentiallyreturned command of Lake Huron to the Britishwho used their base at Milchilimackinac toretake Prairie-du-Chien (in southernWisconsin.)

Gough’s account of this theater ofoperations is an engaging blend of tacticalinitiative and strategic result. The book is easyto read, keeps the reader’s attention, and

generally flows well. It could however, havebenefited from closer editing, to clean up asometimes choppy style and to reorder thenarrative in a more logical sequence in someplaces. Occasionally, the structure isconfusing enough to be comical. We learnfor instance, that the leader of the Britishexpedition to retake Prairie-du-Chien,“McKay, with 75 volunteers and 136Indians, left Milchilimackinac in a canoeon 28 June ...”. Some canoe!

The book is reasonably well providedwith a variety of maps and charts to facilitatecomprehension of the vast areas ofgeography and the unfamiliar place namescovered in the narrative. However, a mapplaced in the endpiece would have furtheraided readers in following the action incontrast to searching back through the textfor maps unlisted in the table of contents.The book is well supported by reproductionsof period paintings and photographs ofreconstructions of some of the vesselsinvolved.

This book is recommended, not onlyas an account of a relatively poorly studiedaspect of the War of 1812, but also as anillustration of important precepts of war. Inthis campaign, the British, through initiativeand enterprise, were able to maintain theircommunications and supply lines to theirprincipal ally to maintain pressure on theiropponent’s flanks. One hundred years later,at the Dardanelles, they would fail to do sowith disastrous results. War is indeedunpredictable - however the principles arenot.

11


James H. Ellis. Mad Jack Percival:Legend of the Old Navy. Annapolis:Naval Institute Press, 2002. 240 pages.$34.95.

Mad Jack Percival:Legend of the Old Navyby James H. EllisReviewed by Ira R. Hanna

lthough Jack Percival was a mastersailor and a courageous patriot, itis odd that most modern naval

history books hardly mention him, some notat all. This biography makes it clear thathe deserves not only to be in them, but givena prominent place. Percival could havemade a fortune as a merchant privateer.Instead, he chose service in his country’sfledgling navy. He performed his dutieswell, but never received the acclamationgiven to his contemporaries. The fact thathe did everything with a flourish gave theopportunity for events to be embellishedand often given the wrong kind of attention.In the words of Peter F. Stevens of theDorchester Reporter, “No novelist couldhave invented this Dorchester seaman,”

even though a number of authors, includingHawthorne, Melvin, and Michener, basedcharacters in their books on him.

Few biographies of early U.S. Navycaptains are as well researched as this one.In fact, in his meticulous way, Ellis provedthat the conclusion of David F. Long, in his1993 biography of Percival was false. Longcontented that Percival robbed unletteredand impoverished seaman. This kind ofpersecution and negative personal attacksPercival often faced in his naval career.Ellis described “Mad Jack” as a man ofmany contrasts-beloved and hated, praisedand reviled, but forever a staunch patriot.

At the time of Percival’s placement onthe reserve list in 1855, his 56-year careerin the U.S. Navy was the longest of anyAmerican naval officer. He distinguishedhimself during the War of 1812 with thecapture of HMS Eagle and as the sailingmaster on the sloop USS Peacock when she

defeated HMS Epervier. As a lieutenantin 1824, Percival commanded the schoonerUSS Dolphin when she was the firstAmerican warship to visit Hawaii (calledthe Sandwich Islands in 1824). He alsotracked down the mutineers of the merchantship Globe and rescued the survivors.These are but a few of the adventuresdetailed in this book. When reading thisbook, one is anxious to see what Mad Jackdoes to resolve his shipboard problems aswell as those ashore. There are navalencounters with pirates and warships ofother nations, diplomatic incidents,difficulties with island natives, and powerstruggles with overzealous Christianmissionaries. An important conclusionreached by the author is that Percival madethe connection between commerce and astrong navy, sixty years before Mahanstated it in his thesis on The Influence ofSea Power Upon History.

It was interesting to note how muchtime Percival spent in the Hampton Roadsarea. In 1809, while assigned to the GosportShipyard, he married Maria Pinkerton inNorfolk County. Several of his ships wererepaired at Gosport and began theirjourneys from this port. He knew thecapabilities of the workers at the shipyard.This knowledge helped Percival toconvince acting Secretary of the NavyDaniel Henshaw to put him in charge ofrepairs to USS Constitution in 1843. If notfor Percival, “Old Ironsides” would havebeen broken up instead of going on anaround the world cruise. With Percival incommand, Constitution’s global voyagewas a diplomatic success and a signal thatAmerica was a power with which to bereckoned.

At the end of his 84 year life, just atthe beginning of the Civil War, Percival wasasked what he would do if he were still inservice. Mad Jack straightened up andreplied that he would concoct a scheme tocatch Confederate president Jefferson

Davis, put a fathom of hemp around hisneck, politely wish him a safe passage, andrun him up the yardarm. If Percival werealive today, one would not have to guesswhat he would do to the young Americanswho fought for the Taliban.

There are two areas that the authorfailed to fully cover. One was Percival’sfamily life. Although Ellis mentionedPercival’s marriage, his wife’s death 48years later, and the adoption of his wife’sniece, Maria Weeks, there is no mention oftheir home life. Another problem is thatEllis referred several times to Percival’ssupport of Isaac Hull in his dispute withWilliam Bainbridge, but did not provide anyconnection to Percival’s career. In addition,some scholars may be annoyed by the lackof footnotes within the text. However, thereare adequate chapter reference notes and abibliography at the end of the book.

This book provides an account of oneof our early naval heroes, unrecognized byhistorians but not by those he trained orcommanded. Percival was certainlyrecognized as the premier sailing master ofthe times. If one wishes to have the feelingof being there at the formation of the U.S.Navy, its purpose and policies, and thetraining of midshipmen before theestablishment of the Naval Academy, thenread this book.

12


The Museum Sage

In Search of a Patriot to Honorhe Sage recently read an excellentarticle in Navy Times about shipnames. It discussed how the Navy

decides who or what receives the highhonor, some controversies surroundingcertain names, and even suggested list offuture names. Now, The Sage takesparticular interest in ship names and onprevious occasions has hinted names hewould like to see (still awaiting on LouisDenfeld as a destroyer name and EugeneEly as an aircraft carrier). The Sage is

however somewhat displeased to see thatThomas Jefferson is a suggested name inthis article.

For those of you who don’t know,Thomas Jefferson may have been the “Sageof Monticello,” but he was certainly not asage of sea power. Jefferson’sadministration is most famous (or infamousdepending on your interpretation) forfavoring a naval doctrine that used smallgunboats instead of frigates. His reasoningwas both one of economics (gunboats costless to build and man) and politicalphilosophy (standing militaries anddemocracies don’t mix).

The doctrine has been criticized andridiculed early and often throughout theyears on how not to form a national defensepolicy, as it was too optimistic and weak.So name schools, buildings, scholarships,and even fossils (see Nauticus’s newtemporary exhibit “Backyard Discoveries”to find out more about this), but for

goodness sake don’t name a ship after him.Unfortunately, the Sage has recently

discovered that he is about 50 years too lateto raise any objections. The Navy hasalready named not just one ship ThomasJefferson, but two! The first one was anattack transport that served with greatdistinction in World War II and Korea. Thesecond was an Ethan Allen-class ballisticmissile submarine built by Newport NewsShipbuilding in the early 1960s. Oh well.

As a result, The Sage went in search fora patriot worthy of a ship name. This isnot to say Thomas Jefferson was not adevoted American. But The Sage needs tofind someone who is both a patriot and asupporter of the Navy.

It didn’t take long to come across thename of Thomas Paine. This man is thepatron saint of newsletter editors, if thereever is going to be such a title. The Sage isonce again reminded that if anyone thinksthat 10 to 12 page newsletter cannot haveinfluence, then one should look at thewritings of Thomas Paine. He was one ofthe most gifted writers of the Englishlanguage. Common Sense, his most famouspublication, was only about 20 pages long,but it motivated thousands of citizens to thecause of independence. The most importantand studied points in the publication arePaine’s beliefs that Americans deservemore than to be ruled by a secular king whohas little interest in the welfare of hiscitizens. Also imbedded in Common Senseis Paine’s argument for an American Navy:

“In point of safety, ought we to be withouta fleet? We are not the little people now,which we were sixty years ago (CommonSense was published in 1776); at that timewe might have trusted our property in thestreets, or fields rather, and slept securelywithout locks or bolts to our doors andwindows. The case is now altered, and ourmethods of defense ought to improve withour increase of property. A common pirate,twelve months ago, might have come up theDelaware, and laid the city of Philadelphiaunder contribution for what sum hepleased; and the same might havehappened to other places. Nay, any daringfellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns,might have robbed the whole continent, and

carried off half a million of money. Theseare circumstances, which demand ourattention, and point out the necessity ofnaval protection.”

Many ships are named in honor of thecivilians who were advocates and friends ofthe Navy. Congressman Carl Vinson (D-GA), Sen. John Stennis (D-MS), andPresident Ronald Reagan all come readilyto mind. Thomas Paine in this regard hasthe right credentials.

Now the one strike mark against Paine isthat there is the possibility that ThomasJefferson was heavily influenced by Paine’sdescription of French gunboats while Painewas in France.

But we won’t hold that against him, willwe? The man, after all, went to France tostir up the masses against the Frenchmonarchy after he finished his work here.Additionally, he rarely accepted any moneyfor his writing despite the fact that CommonSense was a national best seller. Accordingto the Thomas Paine Historical Association,all the royalties for Common Sense went tohelp the cause of the American Revolutionand he died in abject poverty. That, and notthe motivations of the guy in Mel Gibson’smovie, is sign of a true patriot.

The Sage’s latest nomination for the high honor of aU.S. Navy ship name: English writer Thomas Paine.(1793 engraving by William Sharp provided by theThomas Paine Historical Association)

13


Useful Websites

www.dt.navy.mil/cnsm/-The trustee for some of themuseum’s ship model collection is the Curator ofNavy Ship Models. Located in Carderock, MD, thisorganization builds and maintains the Navy’s vastcollection of models. This web site informs visitorsabout the Curator’s ongoing role in ship design andshows off some of the more important parts of thecollection and the history behind it.

usswisconsin.org-This is the website forour friends at the USS WisconsinAssociation. This the official originationof Battleship Wisconsin veterans. It hasmany useful pieces of information and aplethora of photos from the battleship’shistoric career.

14



Throughout his many years as the founder and editorof the Norfolk Landmark, the ever fearless JamesBarron Hope was the yard’s biggest supporter. Heplaced the 1870s trouble squarely at the feet of theRadical Republicans. (HRNM photo)

Commodore Thomas Holdup Stevens II was commandant of theNorfolk Navy Yard from 1873 to 1876. Though Congressinvestigated his command his reputation as a dedicated officerwas not tarnished. He eventually was promoted to rear admiraland served on the Board of Visitors to the Naval Academy.(Photo provided by the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Museum)

chiefs of each bureau blanket authority tocommand their section of the department.In Stevens’ case, he answered to the Chiefof the Bureau of Yard and Docks whowould hand orders down to Stevens as tohow and when to build ships. The orderswould even include how many workerswere to be hired to work on the ships. Manycommandants openly complained that theirsole job at the yard was to be a messengerboy to the chief engineer and constructors.The committee recognized this and wasvery careful not to embarrass thecommandants as many were war heroes.

Stevens was one of these heroes andthe committee cleared him of any charges.After being relieved of his command at theNavy yard, the Navy gave the Norfolkcommandant his second star and assignedhim to the Board of Visitors of the NavalAcademy.

For the civilian politicians, thecommittee was not so forgiving. SecretaryRobeson was once again called to testifyabout Norfolk and all of the Navy yards.In the months leading up to theinvestigation, Robeson noted earlierCongressional criticism and graciouslyreceived what he called “authoritative

suggestions” to improve theconditions of the yards. But, when itcame to corruption charges, he wasvery defensive and denied anywrongdoing.

The committee rejected hisstatement, pointing out thatresponsibility started at the top. “TheSecretary stands convicted by hisown admission of a gross derelictionof duty. He who weakens thenational virtue, the public moralityand the love of liberty deservessevere rebuke and punishment.”

The committee’s conclusionsabout the problems with the Navywere not unanimous. Eight ofthe 11 members, includingthree Republicans, voted forthe conclusion. CongressmanWashington Whitthorne, a Democratfrom Tennessee, wrote out the detailsfor the majority.

However, three Congressmen,all Republicans and one of whom wasan ex-Confederate major fromAlabama, disagreed and believed thatthe investigation into Norfolk wasnothing more than a political witch-Norfolk continued from page 9

hunt on the part of the majority. Theobjectors pointed out that the report wascoming out right before a Presidentialelection and the system of politicalpatronage at the Navy Yard was severaldecades old. They believed, with somevalidity, that it was Congress who failedthe Navy, and not Secretary Robeson orlocal Republican bosses, because Congressrefused to appropriate sufficient funds torun the fleet correctly. In other words, thereason ships like Galena took so long tobuild was not because of inefficientworkers, it was because Congress did notgive the yard enough money to finish theship in a timely fashion, forcing the yard tospread out appropriations over severalyears.

The minority reserved its harshestwords for Porter. They remarked thatPorter’s allegation that the yard acceptedinferior wood was false as the Yard’s owntimber inspector, a Capt. Bishc, and severalother officers certified both the size andquality of the wood. Furthermore, theminority reminded the majority that Porter,in their minds, was not exactly an impartialjudge. “The testimony of Mr. John L. Porterand Mr. Jett,” the minority commented,

“two gentlemen who are hanging aroundthe outskirts of the Norfolk navy-yard,complaining of everything that is beingdone…[Construction of CSS Virginia] wasthe great pride of his life, and now heconstitutes himself a general critic. [Porter]critics [sic] the conduct and doings of menwho were standing by the flag of theircountry when he was attempting to destroyit.”

Though the committee concluded thatcorrupt government officials deserved“severe rebuke and punishment,” in theend, the investigation did not do much ofanything. It did conclude that SecretaryRobeson was responsible for allowing theDepartment and the yards to fall into suchdisarray. The committee, however, did notcall for his resignation or even an officialreprimand, a fact noticed by opponents ofthe findings. It also did not call for reformsin the way the Navy did business or forcriminal prosecution. Both sides did findcommon ground on the issue of politicalpatronage as they both condemned thepractice. The committee did formally

censure Robeson in 1879 on the groundsthat he overspent and mismanaged hisappropriations. The censure failed to deterthe ex-Secretary, as he later assumed aleadership post within the RepublicanCaucus as a Congressman from New Jersey.

The “Dark Ages” of the Navy and theNorfolk Navy Yard continued for the restof the decade. Despite a change inAdministration and in Congress, the Navy

15


One of the star witnesses for the Democrats was noneother than Naval constructor John L. Porter, famedbuilder of the ironclad CSS Virginia. Grant’ssupporters on the committee, however, denouncedPorter’s views as hypocritical and reminded themajority of Porter’s service with the Confederates.(Naval Historical Center photo)

continued to lag behind its Europeancounterparts. At Norfolk, Galena andAlliance were both eventually launched.The official reports continued to list Galenaas a “repaired” vessel. Robeson’ssuccessor, R.W. Thompson, even went sofar as to say that Galena showed “very littlesign of decay, even after twenty-five or

Congressman Washington Curran Whitthorne, aDemocrat from Tennessee, was chairman of the NavalAffairs Committee from 1875 to 1881. An activeparticipant in Confederate politics, Whitthorne wasno admirer of the Grant administration duringReconstruction. Nonetheless, he also believed ingenuine naval reform as he introduced the idea of anaval reserve in the 1880s. (Photo provided by theBiographical Dictionary of the United StatesCongress)

thirty years of service.” The yard continuedits watch over the James River monitorsquadron and five ironclads in a “partialcommissioned” state. A hurricane, whichhit August 1878, set the yard back about ayear in building improvements as itdestroyed the newly built timber sheds.

It was not until the late 1870s and early1880s that the situation at the yardmarginally improved. Norfolk finallyreceived the “liberal appropriations” thathad been advocated by previousadministrations, despite aggressive costcutting in ship construction and extra-cautious spending by Secretary Thompson.The effect of Thompson’s policy could beseen locally, as the ships available to theNorth Atlantic Squadron were drasticallycut. The squadron went from its 1873 forcelevel of eight wooden steamers, twocommissioned ironclads, and five partiallycommissioned ironclads down to sixwooden steamers and no commissionedironclads by 1881. One of the few eventsof a positive nature that occurred locallywas the successful return of the steam sloopTiconderoga in 1880 after a two year cruisearound the world. She was the firstAmerican steam ship to circumnavigate theglobe and was responsible for the firstsuccessful trade and peace negotiationswith Korea.

Nonetheless, the yard itself receivedappropriations to complete some of its moreurgent projects in the late 1870s. The extra

Navy Yard continued from page 14

money went to rebuilding the timber sheds,machine and boiler shops, the constructionof a provision and clothing store andordnance building, and the completion ofa much needed quay along the waterfront.The yard also oversaw the removal ofwrecks in the Elizabeth River sunk in thelate war including the extraction of CSSVirginia. By the mid-1880s, the yard wasfinally in a position to help the Navy moveinto the modern era and constructed USSTexas, the service’s first steel hulledbattleship as well as the protected cruiserUSS Raleigh.

The irony of the Navy Yard’s troublesin the 1870s was that the alleged patronagesystem apparently did not help the NorfolkRepublican Congressman since he wasdenied reelection in 1874. Likewise, theDemocrats’ attempt to embarrass theRepublicans on the national scene failed asRutherford B. Hayes succeeded Grant.

Congressman John Holmes Burleigh,a Republican from Maine and long timeveteran of the merchant marine as a sailorand an owner of ships, probably bestsummed up the Navy Yard and its problemsin the 1870s. While he signed off with themajority in the 1876 investigation, he addedhis own addendum. “I sign this report, as Ibelieve it is in accordance with the evidencetaken and substantially just. Much of it isof a partisan character [that] I have nosympathy with,” he wrote. In other words,there were problems with the Navy and theNorfolk Navy Yard. Bitter partisan politicsand ignorant policy makers impeded thereal reforms to get the Department and theyard moving forward.

“When any political purpose is to beaccomplished at Norfolk, when an electionis pending, the Galena, is ordered by thechief of the bureau at Washington to beworked on.”

-Congressman Washington CurranWhitthorne (D-TN), writing for the majority

“The testimony of Mr. John L. Porter and Mr.Jett seem to have been alone considered by themajority...[Porter] critics [sic] the conduct ofmen who were standing by their flag when hewas attempting to destroy it.”

-Congressman B.W. Harris (R-MA), inresponse to the majority

16


In Our Next Issue...�

�

Task Force Alpha and Operation Zapta

Book reviews: The Rebel Raiders: The Astonishing History ofthe Confederacy’s Secret Navy and Splintering the WoodenWall: The British Blockade of the United States: 1812-1815

James Barron Hope and the Norfolk LandmarkShow Their Support for the Fleet, 1873

Documents

PDF Daybook Reload-Volume 8-Issue 4-PDF Reload