Birth of the American Navy

[quincannon]

The job of the press Tom has always been to sell papers, or in more modern times to boost ratings and sell more advertising as a result.

Everyone's antenna should go up, and their bullshit sensors ought to receive a fine tuning when such lines as - The real story - Finally it can be told - Cover up - Scandal - are the headlines.

We like sensationalism. It's our fault. The press gives what the masses desire.

My hope would have been regarding this particular instance, that before posting, time was taken to check facts against the story. Throwing unchecked fact out onto a board like this gives those unchecked facts credence. It is not the posting though, for information like that should come out, but appended to it should be the commentary of the poster, saying this is the story, I have looked at it, and I think it false, or perhaps I think it needs further examination here as there are aspects about it that do not ring true. It may come as a surprise for some that everything in print, newspapers, books, articles, TV stories, and especially that found on the internet are not true, and many times are not true for a purpose.

Now let us put this aside and mourn his brother's passing, with our brother Ian.

[dave]

QC
Was Lawrence not ordered to avoid combat when taking the USS Chesapeake to sea from Boston and then made a series of tactical mistakes? If not then Tom Halsted printed a false accusation in his article and I foolishly believed. I will apologize to Captain Lawrence's specter and admit my mistake.
Regards
Dave

[quincannon]

Dave: I have never read that anywhere in the naval histories.

President Madison did not wish any more equal on equal duels, between the USN frigates and their RN counterparts. The RN had many, and we had very few. It was a loosing proposition. Instead Madison directed that USN efforts would be limited to commerce raiding. The RN were pretty smart guys. They knew if the blocked our ports that had major naval repair facilities. Boston, Baltimore, New York, Norfolk, and in the process caught the USN frigates inside, most of their commerce protection worries were mitigated. We had scored several frigate on frigate wins during this war, but they in the end were like kissing your sister, nice, but romantically meaningless. That sets the stage.

As I said before Broke taunted Lawrence to come out and fight. In his last message to Lawrence he purposefully revealed why; Broke and Shannon were running out of provisions, and would soon have to leave, with no replacement inbound. Lawrence never received the note from Broke. Had he, all he would have had to do is wait Broke out, and depart Boston for Atlantic raiding, as soon as Broke was away to the north to resupply.

Broke in what he knew were his last days on station moved off to the south. He knew if Lawrence was going to break out it would be first toward Cape Ann, then Cape Cod, and finally the open sea. He even gave up the weather gauge advantage to Lawrence. Problem was that Lawrence could not get around him. Lawrence's tactical problem was hitting Shannon, and avoiding damage to himself so he could get away. A commerce raider is completely ineffective if you have the RN constantly on your tail.

Lawrence faced a very similar problem that Graf Spee did. If Spee broke out of harbor, Ajax, Achilles, and Cumberland would either engage or trail him. What chance then would Spee have of getting away and ultimately back to Germany.

So the only fair thing to say is that Lawrence was forced to fight, against the wishes of Madison, and strategic good sense, but being forced to fight your way out does not mean you disobeyed an order, any more than Reno disobeyed when he made the decision to break out. If Reno could have gotten out of there without engagement he would have. If Lawrence could have avoided Shannon he would have. No disobedience that I see, just the use of judgment consistent with the situation at hand. Had he known of Shannon's ration issues he would have stayed put. He didn't, and frankly no commander ever has a complete picture of the battlefield, no matter how hard they try.

Don't think for a moment here that I am upset with you in any way. You did not direct anyone toward the story. In my view upon seeing this story it was the duty of the person first mentioning it, to say something on the order of ----I ran across this story. It seems inconsistent with what I have been told/believed/assumed, can anyone shed light on it. That is the responsible thing to do.

[dave]

QC
I have no problem saying I was wrong. Not the first nor will it be the last I am sure I make a mistake.
Regards
Dave

[Beth]

Apr 5, 2016 22:42:31 GMT quincannon said:

Dave: I have never read that anywhere in the naval histories.

President Madison did not wish any more equal on equal duels, between the USN frigates and their RN counterparts. The RN had many, and we had very few. It was a loosing proposition. Instead Madison directed that USN efforts would be limited to commerce raiding. The RN were pretty smart guys. They knew if the blocked our ports that had major naval repair facilities. Boston, Baltimore, New York, Norfolk, and in the process caught the USN frigates inside, most of their commerce protection worries were mitigated. We had scored several frigate on frigate wins during this war, but they in the end were like kissing your sister, nice, but romantically meaningless. That sets the stage.

As I said before Broke taunted Lawrence to come out and fight. In his last message to Lawrence he purposefully revealed why; Broke and Shannon were running out of provisions, and would soon have to leave, with no replacement inbound. Lawrence never received the note from Broke. Had he, all he would have had to do is wait Broke out, and depart Boston for Atlantic raiding, as soon as Broke was away to the north to resupply.

Broke in what he knew were his last days on station moved off to the south. He knew if Lawrence was going to break out it would be first toward Cape Ann, then Cape Cod, and finally the open sea. He even gave up the weather gauge advantage to Lawrence. Problem was that Lawrence could not get around him. Lawrence's tactical problem was hitting Shannon, and avoiding damage to himself so he could get away. A commerce raider is completely ineffective if you have the RN constantly on your tail.

Lawrence faced a very similar problem that Graf Spee did. If Spee broke out of harbor, Ajax, Achilles, and Cumberland would either engage or trail him. What chance then would Spee have of getting away and ultimately back to Germany.

So the only fair thing to say is that Lawrence was forced to fight, against the wishes of Madison, and strategic good sense, but being forced to fight your way out does not mean you disobeyed an order, any more than Reno disobeyed when he made the decision to break out. If Reno could have gotten out of there without engagement he would have. If Lawrence could have avoided Shannon he would have. No disobedience that I see, just the use of judgment consistent with the situation at hand. Had he known of Shannon's ration issues he would have stayed put. He didn't, and frankly no commander ever has a complete picture of the battlefield, no matter how hard they try.

Don't think for a moment here that I am upset with you in any way. You did not direct anyone toward the story. In my view upon seeing this story it was the duty of the person first mentioning it, to say something on the order of ----I ran across this story. It seems inconsistent with what I have been told/believed/assumed, can anyone shed light on it. That is the responsible thing to do.

QC, I would agree with your last paragraph if the post was in the areas where we discuss Naval history but it was in a Custer thread where we have been discussing Custer's legacy.  One of those points being his name is used to evoke rightly or wrongly, -in this case a person who brashly promises more that they can deliver (per the article's author).  Or at least that is my take.

Dan has posted the other two boards but that was only his second post here.  Give him a chance to get the feel of things here.

[quincannon]

Dave: I don't think you were wrong. Far from it. You read the article and approached it properly.

Mac: Suggest that you find copies of Edward Longacre's Lee's Cavalrymen, and Mr. Lincoln's Cavalry. Those two books run parallel to each other giving the view from both sides of the hill. I have both, but I have a most of the day meeting tomorrow concerning some security consulting work. I will be here in the morning a little but not enough to review the chapters on TS. Longacre is very fair in how he does things, a professional historian for the Air Force. Think he will give you a good overview.

Beth: Brash promises, are not brash when you can deliver. Lawrence proved with Hornet he could deliver. He got beat fair and square, by a guy who was just as good. The two men Custer and Lawrence were night and day in terms of competence. Comparing Lawrence to Custer in that regard is an insult, and it was that insult that I found contemptible. I see absolutely no difference here, than claiming Reno was a drunken coward, or Benteen delayed for reasons of personal animosity. That poster would be the first to object were those charges leveled, but passes off the same thing for another. Can't have it both ways. Commissioned officers, regardless  of service, and regardless of the king the serve, take matters of honor, integrity, competence, and loyalty very seriously, and get more than a bit of heartburn when allegations, not supported by fact, are leveled against a brother officer. The key words there are - not supported by fact. If someone said that Lawrence could be a horse's ass on occasion it was more than likely true ---- but so are we all.

[Beth]

QC you're missing my point. You are looking at it solely as an article about Lawrence--which it is. Truthfully I knew nothing about the guy and though I've heard 'don't give up the ship' I had no idea where it came from. I've actually learned a lot from the conversation and will be picking it out and putting it in the proper area if no one objects.

My point is that you are seem to be shooting the messenger by getting annoyed at the person who posted the link. He did not make any comment about the validity of the information, just that he thought the was comparision to Custer was remarkable. I have to admit I do too because regardless of it's validity, it just seems so out of left field. It would be like writing a long article about Little Bighorn, refer to Reno and then mention the Battle of Actium.

[deadwoodgultch]

Beth,
Since I have been around Montrose has said hate the post not the poster. I have only had one conversation with Will and what I can gather his meaning is destroy the validity of the post not the poster.

Regards,
Tom

[quincannon]

Without the proviso I mentioned earlier, saying that  -  I ran across this and it is inconsistent with all else I read, what do you all think, - which I believe should have been there, and the responsible way to go about it. Without some introductory statement the implication is tacit agreement with the content. If that was not the intention so be it, but I would like to hear that from him.

I do not care if the poster posts here until the second coming of the Almighty. That is his right as a member. So I am not attacking him at all.

I am attacking the article, and if I am going after anyone, it is the writer of the article Halsted.

If this portion of the thread is to be moved, and I agree it should be, may I suggest it falls under Naval Warfare, which we already have, with the sub-thread entitled Birth of the American Navy. That way it would cover the period form the Revolutionary War  to just before the ACW, and we would not have to create a multitude of threads that address this formative period. Then Ian and RW can call JPJ a pirate to their heart's content.

[Admin1]

Revolutionary War to just before the ACW

[Admin1]

The real, shameful story behind ‘Don’t give up the ship!’
Behind the iconic American slogan, a military loss—and a PR win

[carl]

When the Navy Department was established in 1798, the
Secretary had a daunting task. The undeclared naval
conflict with France had begun. Ships had to be
built or procured - personnel had to be obtained
particularly competent officers - supplies and
equipment had to be purchased within the financial
limits set by Congress.

The Secretary was in effect the Chief of Naval
Operations - responsible for the strategy and
operational aspects of the conflict. He was
the Intelligence Chief, the Chief Logistician
and Purchasing Agent, and the Personnel chief.

The Naval Captains in the War of 1812 who set
the tone for the future Navy - Men such as
Bainbridge, Decatur, Stewart, Hull, Chauncey,
Porter, Lawrence, Perry, and MacDonough were
young officers selected or known to the
Secretary during the Quasi War.

A good case can be made that the true
founder of the US Navy was Benjamin Stoddert.

[deadwoodgultch]

Benjamin Stoddert, born in Charles County, MD. A home boy, tobacco merchant, and acquired much of the land that became the District of Columbia, for George Washington and the govt. Family still lives in the area, as I understand it.  Had at least one Navy Ship named after him, it was around when I was in the service.