Marc Liebman's Blog, page 24

Becoming Slaves to King Cotton

By the time the American Revolution ended in 1783, the Industrial Revolution was gathering steam. English inventions in the textile industry were making it cheaper to manufacture linen and wool based fabrics.

In 1733, John Kay invented what is known as the “flying shuttle” which enabled weavers to create wider lengths of cloth faster. Jedediah Strutt modified the weavers frame so that stockings could be made from cotton rather than silk.

James Watt, partnered with Matthew Boulton to invent the practical steam engine that could be used to power “things.” This 1762 creation reduced the reliance on power from fast moving streams and rivers. The inventions – John Hargreaves’ spinning jenny (1764); Richard Arkwright’s “water frame” (1769); “Crompton’s Mule” (1779); and the “power loom” (1785) – all reduced the time and cost to make cotton cloth came one right after another. Edmund Cartwright’s power loom (1785) coupled to a Boulton/Watt steam engine let a textile manufacturer complete all the steps needed to create cotton cloth in one factory.

However, there was one minor problem. Cotton did not grow well in England’s (or Europe’s) climate. Indian cotton was a long, expensive journey from England. With no Panama or Suez Canal, the 10,600 nautical mile journey from Mumbai to Bristol or Liverpool took, not accounting for the time needed to tack back and forth into the wind, at least 88 days at five knots.

When the American Revolution began, the Thirteen Colonies were already feeding Europe’s growing textile industry with indigo used for blue dyes and cotton. In both quantity and value, U.S. exports in 1783 of cotton were behind indigo, rice, dried fish, and tobacco.

To take advantage of the inventions noted earlier, English, and new mills in New England needed large quantities of cotton to generate a return on their owners’ investments. Enter the American south which had an ideal climate for growing cotton in the quantities needed by the English mills.

The problem was that once harvested, the seeds had to be removed from the balls of cotton to produce the lint needed for cotton thread. Without mechanization, the process was slow, labor intensive and not effective.

Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, patent number X92 granted on March 14th, 1794, drew cotton balls through a fine mesh and removed the seeds. With a cotton gin, production went from a pound of lint a day to 55. In 17 years, U.S. cotton exports rose exponentially from less than 500,000 pounds in 1793 to 43,000,000 pounds in 1810!

In the late 18th and 19th Century, farming was (and in many ways still is) a labor-intensive business. The internal combustion engine and electricity were still a century away. Practical steam powered tractors weren’t built in any quantity until the middle of the 1860s.

All of which leads us back to one of the darkest aspects of American and Caribbean history. Growing cotton was dependent on cheap labor, i.e. slaves. In the French and British held islands of the Caribbean, slaves were used to plant and harvest sugar cane and other high value crops such as coffee and cacao.

The British abolished slavery in 1838. After three tries, France ended slavery in 1845. Trinidad replaced slavery with indentured servitude which was not abolished until 1917.

The United States needed a bloody four-year civil war that killed between 620,000 and 750,000 Americans to end slavery. Yet the aftereffects of this practice, brought on by the need to meet the demand for cotton, haunt us to this very day.

The drawing is from Eli Whitney’s patent, courtesy of the U.S. Patent Office.

The post Becoming Slaves to King Cotton appeared first on Marc Liebman.

We Need a Strong Navy

Our Founding Fathers knew that to win the war for independence from England, the Thirteen Colonies needed an effective navy. The Continental Army was founded on June 14th, 1775, and almost four months to the day later, the Continental Navy was founded on October 13th, 1775.

Why does (or did) we need a navy since most of the war was fought on land? The answer is found in how England had to wage war.

The Thirteen Colonies had little industry and facilities for making weapons of war were, at best limited. None of the gunsmiths in the colonies could make enough needed for war. Foundries to make cannon were illegal under the British. Several small gunpowder mills existed, but none could provide what was needed by either the Continental or British armies and navies.

Therefore, military supplies had to come from Europe by ship. Most of our gunpowder and weapons came from The Netherlands, France, and Spain. Britain’s well-developed arms industry could make what they needed.

England’s strategy was two-fold. Defeat Washington’s army in the field and strangle colonies’ economy through a blockade.

Our Founding Fathers knew that anything its navy and privateers could do to disrupt British commerce and supplies coming to the U.S. hurt the British. Privateers and the nascent Continental Navy captured between 12 and 15% of the British merchant fleet. Their success hindered British re-supply and reinforcement efforts not only of the British Army fighting Washington, but also in the Caribbean and India where England was struggling to retain its possessions.

In the 1790s, Barbary Pirates began seizing U.S. ships and holding their crews and cargos for ransom. Tribute didn’t work so early in the 19th Century, in stepped the new U.S. Navy.

A few years later, desperate for men to man their ships in the 20+ years of war against the French, Royal Navy warships were stopping U.S. merchant ships and “impressing,” a better word would be kidnapping U.S. citizens to serve on its ships. This, plus their refusal to leave forts in the Northwest Territories and attempts to restrict U.S. trade with countries in Europe led us to declare war on England in 1812.

During the American Civil War, recognizing the Confederacy did not have the arsenals to support its army and had to resort to smuggling weapons paid for by cotton. The Union Navy’s blockade strangled the Confederacy economy and cut off the flow of arms.

Fast forward to 1917. England and France were exhausted by the cost of fighting the Germans. To get the American Expeditionary Force to France, it had to be transported across the Atlantic. While the U-boat menace was not as strong as it was in World War II, the British and American navies still had to protect the convoys.

In World War II, in the European theater the longest, most important, and decisive fight was the Battle of the Atlantic. Until we defeated the German U-boats, the invasions of North Africa and Europe would not have been possible.

In the Pacific, U.S. submarines decimated the Japanese merchant fleet. By 1943, the Japanese military was losing the war and its industry was short of fuel and raw materials.

And last, in every NATO war against the Soviet Union scenario, the key to allied success was winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Today, we see the Peoples Republic of China attempting to gain control of the South China Sea. Why? Much of the raw materials, particularly oil, comes by sea from Iran and is easy to interdict.

So, despite all the air cargo operators, most of the stuff coming into the U.S. comes by sea. Every day we see pictures and videos of cargo ships anchored off our coast, we should be reminded of the importance of freedom of the seas that is made possible by a strong, effective U.S. and other allied navies.

Image is the Navy Jack, flown on the first Continental Navy ship in 1775 and is still flown from the bow flagstaff on the oldest ship in the U.S. Navy which is currently the Seventh Fleet Flagship, the U.S.S. Blue Ridge (LCC-19)

 

The post We Need a Strong Navy appeared first on Marc Liebman.

A Revolution Partly Fueled By Madeira Wine

The quote “in wine there is romance, in beer there is freedom and in water, there is only bacteria” is reputed to come from Benjamin Franklin. While one can smile at his wisdom, the fact is that wine, Madeira to be exact, was the favorite of many of our Founding Fathers.

Madeira wine was used to toast the signing of the Declaration of Independence and was the preferred beverage of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. The day before he died, Washington asked Martha about his last order for Madeira. Adams often referenced the fortified wine in his letters to his wife Abigail while a member of the Continental Congress and then later, the Constitution Convention. Franklin mentioned his preferences for Madeira several times in his biography.

Our first Chief Justice John Marshall drank it and encouraged his fellow justices to imbibe the wine from Portuguese island. And, it has a distinctly Navy connection in that when the U.S.S. Constitution was launched in 1797, a bottle of Madeira was used to christen the new ship.

For those of you who don’t know, Madeira wines come from an archipelago about 320 miles west of Morocco and 250 north of the Canary Islands. Today, as it was in the 18th Century, the islands are a Portuguese colony.

Madeira is considered a fortified wine. Initially sugar was used but by the mid-18th Century, brandy was the preferred ingredient. The wine filled casks are put on racks called estufugas and allowed to be warned by the sun. Why? Early Madeiran winemakers) found quite by accident that the heating of the wine in the wooden casks during the weeks needed to sail from the Madeira Islands to destinations all over the world, the taste improved. In fact, unlike other non-fortified wines, Madeira can stay in a cask or bottle for years, even centuries and not lose its taste.

So back to the American Revolution. In 1766, when John Hancock learned the British Parliament repealed the Stamp Act, he put two pipes of Madeira in front of his place of business for Bostonians to sample. A pipe is a wooden cask containing 112 gallons of the wine.

However, two years later, Hancock’s ship Liberty was seized by the British after it unloaded 25 pipes of Madeira or 3,150 gallons. The merchant ship was taken because Hancock had not paid the new and higher customs duties. Bostonians rioted at the sudden shortage of one of their favorite beverages.

During the Revolutionary War, Washington purchased the wine for his own consumption as well as his officers. In the early days of the war, he purchased enough pipes so he could share over 1,900 bottles with his staff.

In the years leading up to the American Revolution, different “flavors” of Madeira emerged to cater to demand from the Thirteen Colonies who were consuming 95% of the island’s production. Madeiran vintners responded by “tailoring” their product to the tastes of New Yorkers who preferred sweeter red wines versus the drier flavor desired by those living in South Carolina.

Despite being allied with England during the American Revolution, the Portuguese government encouraged the exportation of Madeira to the Thirteen Colonies. However, after the war ended, the tax shoe was now on the other foot. Both the Continental Congress and then later, the Federal government, under the new Constitution saw alcoholic beverages as a source of tax revenue.

Those taxes, plus opening the U.S. market to French and Spanish wines, which prior to the American Revolution, were expensive due to British import duties, eroded Madeira’s market share. By the early 19th Century, Madeira had lost its position as the favorite wine in the new United States.

Image is a receipt given to General Henry Knox for his purchase of pipes of Madeira.A

The post A Revolution Partly Fueled By Madeira Wine appeared first on Marc Liebman.

The Seeds of the Needs for a Strong Navy

Since the United States is a maritime nation, logic says we need a strong navy to protect our coasts, our merchant ships, and our interests abroad. Yet, despite knowing this, at the end of the American Revolution, the Continental Navy, along with the Continental Army were both gone – dissolved. This left the new nation defenseless.

Why? Our Founding Fathers feared standing armies and navies because they saw them as a threat to democracy. Washington was born in 1732, Jefferson in 1743, Franklin in 1706, Adams in 1735. Their lives were defined by struggles for power and territory in Europe that led to coups, counter coups, and wars.

The War of Austrian Succession began in 1744 and ended in 1748. It bled, literally into the Carnatic Wars of 1748 to 1753. Three years later, the the Seven Years War of 1756 to 1763 began.

Internationally, the world in the 1780s and 1790s wasn’t a nice place. Naively, our Founding Fathers thought countries around the world honor our desire to be neutral. They naively thought that the French Navy through the 1778 Treaty of Friendship and Alliance, would protect our merchant vessels sailing in the Mediterranean, the Caribbean and European waters. It did not.

We turned to our former enemy, the British and the Royal Navy. Parliament allowed, at the convoy commander’s discretion, U.S. flagged ships to sail in convoys escorted by the Royal Navy.

There were other bad actors on the scene who recognized no flag. They were only interested in capturing ships, selling the cargo, and holding the ship and the crew for ransom. Even though the Age of Piracy ended mid-18th Century there were still pirates were still operating in the Caribbean. In the late 18th Century, the most famous pirates were based along the North African coast. The Barbary Pirates saw U.S. merchant ships as easy pickings and a gullible young nation who thought tribute would keep its ships from being taken.

When the French Revolutionary Wars began in 1792, nations on both sides claimed U.S. ships were carrying contraband to their enemy and therefore, could be seized. Between 1792 and 1794 when the Jay Treaty was signed, the Royal Navy had seized 300 U.S. ships. Most of were carrying goods from French territories in the Caribbean to customers in Europe, Canada, and the U.S.

By 1797, 20% of the Federal budget was tribute going to the Barbary States. When the amount reached, 30%, the U.S. Congress, led by President Jefferson, said enough was enough and the nascent U.S. Navy was committed to put an end to their demands for tribute.

If one uses the March 20th, 1783, the date Alliance – the last frigate in the Continental Navy – was taken out of service until Washington signed the Navy Act on March 27th, 1794, the U.S. had no navy for 11 years. The act created the U.S. Navy and it would take several years before ships were built and crews trained.

So unless the geography of the earth changes, the point of this post is that the United States needs a strong, well-equipped, and well-led Navy. It was true in 1783 and is just as true in 2021. This is a lesson we learned and painfully re-learned over throughout our history.

Etching is of the U.S.S. Alliance,36 guns that hangs in the National Museum of the U.S. Navy

The post The Seeds of the Needs for a Strong Navy appeared first on Marc Liebman.

We Are a Maritime Nation

The photos of ships parked off U.S. Atlantic and Pacific ports we see in the media are painful reminders of one of the key lessons of the American Revolution, i.e., we are a maritime nation. To the north, we there are the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. On the east, we have the Atlantic; to the west, the Pacific; and to the south, the Gulf of Mexico.

We are one of six nations blessed with deep-water ports on both coasts that provide access to two of the world’s great oceans. The others are Australia, Canada, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa. However, Russia needs a fleet of ice breakers to keep its ports on the Barents Sea (for access to the Atlantic) and Sea of Okhotsk (for access to the Pacific) open for almost half of the year. Only Vladivostok on the Sea of Japan and Rostov-on-Don on the Black Sea are ice free year-round.

Our geography gives us gives us another strategic and commercial advantage. Ships coming and going to U.S. ports are not dependent on transit rights through a narrow strait. Unlike Rostov-on-Don which requires transiting the Bosporus, ships coming to the U.S. enter a port directly from the ocean.

Even before the American Revolution began, our Founding Fathers understood the advantages of our geography as did England. When the American Revolution started, merchants in the Thirteen Colonies were trading with European countries. Back then, everything going and coming had to travel by sea.

During the American Revolution, the Royal Navy tried to blockade the Atlantic Coast to shut down the colonies international trading but couldn’t. Although many of our merchant vessels were captured by the Royal Navy, the trade continued with those countries who were neutral and our allies.

Privateers and Continental Navy ships also slipped through the Royal Navy’s blockade to disrupt British commerce. By the end of the American Revolution, privateers and Continental Navy ships had captured between 12 and 15% of the British Merchant fleet.

For the British, the loss of these ships disrupted Britain’s international commerce and made it difficult to defend their colonies in the Caribbean and India. British merchants lost thousands of pounds worth of goods to privateers and the Continental Navy.

While the Royal Navy had control of the seas, it was forced to divert warships to escort convoys of merchant ships rather than support British Army garrisons. With not enough cargo ships, England struggled to resupply and reinforce the British Army in North America, and its colonies in the Caribbean and India.

Once the war was over, U.S. trade with England and the rest of Europe soared. The new United States also had raw materials – lumber, indigo, cotton, dried fish, fruits and vegetables, wheat, corn, etc. – wanted by European businessmen. And it all went by sea.

So, in this era of supply shortages, remember that in 2021, most of the cargo that comes into the U.S. or is shipped overseas still goes by ship. Despite all fleets of cargo airplanes, what was true in 1775 is still true in 2021, 246 years later, i.e., we are a maritime nation.

 

Map showing why the U.S. is a Maritime Nation

The post We Are a Maritime Nation appeared first on Marc Liebman.

End of Close Friendships

While the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 gave birth to the United States of America as an independent nation, the document didn’t resolve all the differences between the two countries. When the negotiations began in 1793 of what became the Jay Treaty, the U.S. had been independent for nearly 10 years.

After King Louis XVI had been deposed, French royalty spread out over Europe to garner support to put their king back on his throne by force. Their efforts led to French Revolutionary Wars which began in 1792 and lasted until 1802. Seeing a chance to weaken a traditional enemy, England again went to war with France.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t want another war with England but there at least five major issues that still needed to be resolved. One, the British promised to abandon their forts in the Northwest Territories and stop inciting the Indian tribes against the new country. Two, return the 300+ merchant ships the Royal Navy had seized in 1792 and 1793 and return the seamen who had been impressed into the Royal Navy. Or provide pay the ships’ owners.

Three, planters in the southern states wanted compensation for the slaves who escaped and were taken to British colonies at the end of the war. Four, U.S. merchants wanted the ability to trade with the British colonies in the Caribbean. Fifth, the border between the U.S. and Canada needed to be “more accurately” defined.

The Democratic-Republicans (the forerunner of the modern Democratic Party) led by Thomas Jefferson opposed any discussions with England and wanted a closer relationship with France. They were willing to risk another war with England even though U.S. trade with England alone was growing exponentially.

Unfortunately, for Jefferson and his followers, the Federalists under George Washington and John Adams, had a majority in Congress and held the presidency. Led by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, the Federalists favored closer ties with England. Washington was willing to sacrifice much of his political capital and goodwill to achieve what he believed were the countries’ objectives without a war.

John Jay was sent to England to negotiate with the British. As an opponent of slavery, Jay didn’t push for compensation for the slaves who left nor did he win compensation for the lost ships. What he did get was agreement to vacate the forts by June 1796 as well as most favored nation trading status with England and its colonies along with the formation of a joint boundary commission to finalize the U.S./Canadian border.

In Congress, the Democratic-Republicans pulled out all the stops to prevent ratification of the Jay treaty. The fight became very ugly. Jefferson and his allies published articles about Washington and Adams that were, besides insulting, not true. Congressman Fredrick Muhlenberg was stabbed because he voted for the treaty.

The Democratic-Republican’s opposition was based not on foreign policy differences, but political power. They wanted control of Congress and the presidency. In the election to replace Washington, Adams won decisively and the Federalists retained control off the Congress.

The sad part of the divisive debate over the Jay Treaty was that it ruptured the long-term friendships among Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. After the vote to ratify, Washington never spoke with either Jefferson or Madison again.

Martha Washington later wrote after her husband died that the debate over the Jay Treaty took at least two years off her husband’s life. She added that the worst two days of her life were when George passed away and Jefferson was elected president in 1800.

Map shows the location of the eight British forts, six on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes and two at the northern end of Lake Champlain in modern Vermont.

The post End of Close Friendships appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Avoiding the Foreign Entanglements Vise

The United States of America became an independent country on September 3rd, 1783, when the Treaty of Paris was inked by both sides. Once ratified by both the English Parliament and the Continental Congress it became effective on May 12th, 1784.

Once the U.S. was independent, our Founding Fathers wanted to concentrate on unifying the country, i.e., bring the Loyalists back into the social and economic fabric of the country; repay the country’s debts; encourage immigrants to come to the U.S. and populate the land given to us by England. In other words, the Founding Fathers wanted to govern so that each individual could pursue life, liberty, wealth and happiness.

So why is this important? We, as a country, wanted to be left alone.

That was not the view from either Paris or London. King Louis XVI and his foreign minister, Charles Gravier, the Count de Vergennes, wanted the U.S. as a staunch France’s ally. Their rationale was based on their belief that we should show our gratitude for France’s help in winning our independence. Therefore, we should ally ourselves with France’s positions vis à vis England.

In London, William Pitt “The Younger” who took power in December 1783 had a different perspective. He, and his allies in the British government, looked at the new United States as a potential economic partner and ally. After all, the U.S. began as British colonies. Increasing the trade that existed before the American Revolution was beneficial to both countries would increase England’s wealth.

Pitt’s actions, particularly when he agreed to the Jay Treaty in 1794 that clarified some of the terms of the Treaty of Paris and granted the new U.S. more favorable terms is “exhibit A” of this policy. England’s approach was not altruistic. They wanted use trade to pry the new country out of France’s sphere of influence. (see link – https://marcliebman.com/the-jay-treaty-a…national-dispute/ )

The Jay Treaty was seen in Paris as a violation of the Treaty of Alliance and Friendship signed in 1778 that brought France into the war on our side. When France signed the Treaty of Aranjuez with Spain in 1779, it violated two of the terms of the Treaty of Alliance and Friendship. And then in 1781, France violated it again when they opened negotiations with the English without bothering to inform Dr. Franklin, our minister to France. (see French Diplomatic Duplicity During the American Revolution – https://marcliebman.com/french-diplomatic-duplicity-during-the-american-revolution/ )

The upheaval in France known as the French Revolution led to an almost continual state of war between Great Britain and France from 1793 until Napoleon was defeated in June 1815. Throughout the conflicts which involved almost every major European power, the U.S. insisted on maintaining its neutrality so its merchants could trade with every European country.

In the last decade of the 18th Century, U.S. trade with England grew by 300%. Our trade with France as well as the rest of Europe also increased markedly.

War in Europe was good for the American economy but neutrality came with headaches. France tried both diplomacy and intimidation. Britain used “kindness” and appealed to our merchants’ desire to make money. However, in hindsight, through the Jay Treaty, the leaders of the United States were betting that England would ultimately defeat France.

Image is Gilbert Stuart portrait of John Jay.

The post Avoiding the Foreign Entanglements Vise appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Some Things in Defense Procurement Never Change

The modern U.S. Navy came into being when the Congress passed the Naval Act of 1794. For at least two years, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and Minister (Ambassador) to France Thomas Jefferson urged the Congress and President Washington to create a standing navy. Pressure from merchants who owned ships and cargos that were taken by the Barbary Pirates (11 in 1793 alone) and foreign navies added to the heat on Washington and the Congress.

Ever since the Continental Navy was disbanded and the Continental Army was dissolved in 1784, the country had no standing military force. Each state was required to maintain a militia but money was in short supply and the units were underfunded and undertrained.

The cost, fear of coup by the leaders of “standing” army and not wanting to appear to be a threat to European powers, our Founding Fathers were reluctant to have a “permanent” Army and Navy. Under the Articles of Confederation, the government didn’t have the power to levy taxes so getting the 13 states to pony up money for an army and navy was a non-starter.

Article I (Legislative), Section 8, Paragraph 13 of the newly ratified Constitution gave the Congress the power to “Provide and maintain a Navy.” Article II (Executive), Section 2, Paragraph 1 makes the President, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. The Constitution also gave the House of Representatives the power to raise taxes. The ability to pay for a Navy was granted, but not used until on March 27th, 1794, when the Navy Act was passed. See blog posted on 7/11/21 “For Purchase or Otherwise” – https://marcliebman.com/for-purchase-or-otherwise/ .

What’s unique about the legislation was that rather than have the President or the Navy assess the threat, Congress dictated the number of ships (four with 44 guns, two with 36 guns), pay, crew size and organization, and much more including the daily menu (see image with this post). Opposition to the bill was strong and a compromise was a clause inserted into the bill stating that if a peace treaty with the Barbary Pirates was reached, then construction of the ships would cease. The Barbary Pirates were a group of city states on the North African side of the Mediterranean from modern Algeria east to Libya.

While the ships were authorized, long term funding was limited by Article I (Legislative), Section 8, Paragraph 12 which states “12: To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” Given that we were starting with a clean sheet design, selecting designer, the shipyards, issuing the contracts were political footballs in 1794 just like they are today. Building and outfitting the ships would, even without interruptions, would take more than two years.

When a treaty was signed on November 4th, 1796 with the Bey of Tripoli, the clause that ended construction kicked in. Construction on all six frigates stopped. Washington went back to Congress and in 1797, funding for only three ships United States, Constellation and Constitution was approved.

Work was underway building these ships as well as recruiting and ultimately training crews when the XYZ Affair (see blog posted on 7/26/2020 – https://marcliebman.com/laffaire-de-xyz/) occurred. In 1798, the Revolutionary French government ordered its Navy to seize American ships and issued letters of marque to privateers to do the same. Reluctantly, the Congress agreed to fund the three remaining ships President, Congress and Chesapeake.

President was the last of these frigates to be completed. It was launched in 1800, six years after its design and construction was approved by Congress. So, you see, Congressional interference, some would call it oversight, in defense procurement has been with us since the first days of our country.

Image is of the last page of the Naval Act of 1794 where the Congress dictates the menu to be served on board Navy ships.

The post Some Things in Defense Procurement Never Change appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Melee Tactics Versus Trading Broadsides

When the Continental Navy was authorized by the Continental Congress on October 13th, 1775, the Americans had no ships, the Royal Navy had 350 rated ships and 550 in commission. Its officers and crews were all seasoned professionals and at the time, were part of the biggest, best trained, and equipped navy. The Royal Navy had money, an organization and a supply chain that knew how to support ships at sea.

The Continental Navy had none of the above. With few exceptions, its ships were crewed by inexperienced amateurs. We had shipyards but no cannon foundries. Throughout the American Revolution, a lack of money plagued the Continental Army and Navy.

When one looks at the situation when the war started on April 19th, 1775, it is fair to ask, “What were our Founding Fathers thinking?” They had just declared war on arguably one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world.

Despite having a governmental system that did not allow the Continental Congress to raise taxes, the Continental Navy managed to build, man, and equip frigates to take on the Royal Navy. If one looks at the numbers, the inexperienced Continental Navy had its clock cleaned. Out of the 63 frigates it sent to war, 20 were captured, 19 were burned to avoid capture and four were sunk by the Royal Navy.

Yet, despite losing 43 of its ships, the Continental Navy and American Privateers managed to capture between 12 and 15% of the British Merchant fleet. Their success made it difficult for the British government to resupply and reinforce its forces fighting the Continental Army and the French and Spanish in the Caribbean and the French on the Indian Subcontinent.

The lack of numbers and experience forced the captains of the Continental Navy ships to adapt their tactics to their ships they were sailing. Many were converted merchantmen. Others were brigs or frigates with fewer and/or smaller cannon than those they faced.

Royal Navy captains were trained to get side by side with an enemy ship and trade broadsides and use rate of fire and the discipline of its crews to carry the day. Continental Navy captains, even those who spent time in the Royal Navy, preferred to use their skill as seamen.

Rather than trade broadsides, Continental Navy captain tried to out-maneuver the Royal Navy ship and fire from either the bow or stern where the Royal Navy ships could not fire back. This is not to say that the Royal Navy captains didn’t try to gain tactical advantage, but when battle was inevitable, they shortened sail and invited the enemy ship to fight it out, side by side.

These “maneuver first/avoid trading broadsides” tactics were called melees. American captains used chain and bar shot to rip up the Royal Navy ship’s rigging, thus hindering the enemy ship’s ability to maneuver. They were first used by the French Navy to counter the better trained and equipped Royal Navy and take advantage of their faster and more maneuverable ships.

Melee tactics had another advantage. If the Continental Navy ship’s lookouts spotted another frigate on the horizon, the chances were that it was British. Melee tactics enabled the Continental Navy captain to break off the action and hopefully escape rather than take on two Royal Navy ships.

While the Royal Navy continued to hold to its doctrine of trading broadsides, the Continental Navy’s tactics continued to evolve with the nascent U.S. Navy. When the Royal Navy faced off against the U.S. Navy in the War of 1812, it again had the advantage of numbers.

This time the Royal Navy found itself facing a navy with ships that were better built, faster, more maneuverable and carried heavier armament. The U.S. Navy crews led by professional Naval officers who honed their skills fighting the French in the Quasi War and then the Barbary Pirates. Their ships could either trade broadsides and win or maneuver and win. The net result was the U.S. Navy, its ships and tactics were an ugly surprise to the Royal Navy.

Drawing is of the U.S.S. Alliance, 40 guns, the last ship of the Continental Navy courtesy of Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.

The post Melee Tactics Versus Trading Broadsides appeared first on Marc Liebman.

One of the World’s First Successful Meritocracies

In 18th Century England, if one was not borne to wealth and privilege, there was another way to win fame and fortune. It was called the Royal Navy. If one was successful, one could move from midshipman to being awarded a peerage by the king.

The route was arduous and started with an appointment as a midshipman. Typically, a midshipman was 12 – 14 but some were as young as 10. These youngsters were taught by the ship’s lieutenants as well as its gunner, sailing master, quartermaster, and boatswain.

After four years but before six years of “satisfactory” service, a midshipman sat for the lieutenant’s exam. The midshipman was grilled by captains on tactics, his understand of the articles of war, seamanship, navigation, gunnery, ship organization, etc., etc., etc.

A midshipman sitting for the lieutenant’s exam could be as young as 15 or 16. Lieutenants (and some senior midshipmen) had to be capable of sailing a captured ship to a friendly port hundreds of miles away. They were expected take over as the ship’s captain due to disease and in the heat of battle, take command and win.

Reports written by each ship’s captain on his officers were forwarded to the Admiralty where the staff of the Second Sea Lord determined who would be promoted. Was the system perfect? No, but it produced a crop of very professional seamen who were outstanding tacticians and competent leaders.

On board ship, lieutenants often held classes to teach sailors who wanted to learn how to read and write along with basic math. There are many, many cases of ship’s boys whose careers began as a 10-year-old ship’s boy or a powder monkey became warrant officers – ship masters, gunners, pursers, boatswains, quartermasters. Some earned commissions as a lieutenant and progressed up through the ranks.

The Royal Navy offered something the British Army could not – prize money. If the ship took prizes, everyone on board shared in the wealth. The higher one’s rank, the larger the share. Prize money became the basis for many family fortunes.

To learn more about how prize money was distributed, go to the link – https://marcliebman.com/jaco-jacinto-age-of-sail-series/ and page down to the section titled Prize Money. Prize money could make an officer wealthy in a hurry particularly if his ship captured several prizes.

Admittedly, by 2021 standards, discipline on an 18th Century Royal Navy ship was harsh. It had to be because, e.g., on a frigate one had 200+ men living on a ship that was 135 feet long and 35 feet wide. On the other hand, sailors were fed three times a day, received medical care when needed, and were paid. At the end of 20 years or if they were disabled and could no longer serve aboard ship, received an annual pension that was half their annual wages.

Was the system perfect? No. Did it work? Absolutely. By the end of the 18th Century, the Royal Navy had no peer. What the service pioneered is the model for all modern navies and is followed by many businesses and government organizations.

Painting is Thomas Gainsborough’s portrait of George Brydges Rodney who entered the Royal Navy from an impoverished family and ended his career as Lord Rodney.

The post One of the World’s First Successful Meritocracies appeared first on Marc Liebman.