US 74 gun Ships of the Line

Thanks for the information regarding HMS VICTORY!  I am working on a dreadful kit of her by Aeropiccola (their small "SUPERMEC" series) that my father gave to me to build for him.  The manufacturer does not include any directions for cutting gunports, simply directing the builder to draw them on with a pencil.  I think that I would have been better off building the same-scale Airfix kit, using the cloth sails, flags, and wooden blocks from the Aeropiccola kit. The information that you all provided have been of immense help to me!  I appreciate it.  Thanks again!

Bill Morrison

The Essex - as I mentioned earlier in this thread - was rated at 32 guns and, at the time of her action with H.M.S. Phoebe and H.M.S. Cherub, was armed with six 12-pounder long guns and forty 32-pounder carronades.  (The figures are from Mr. Silverstone's book, which I think is pretty reliable in such matters.) 

As I also mentioned earlier, sloops of war, brigs, and other smaller British warships often had main armaments consisting of carronades.  Whether those weapons could be said to have been carried "below decks" is, I guess, a matter of definition.  A sloop of war, brig, or smaller vessel didn't have a full-length, covered gundeck - though I guess if one looked hard enough one might find a few that had carronades under their quarterdecks or forecastles.

Warshipguy - in tackling that Aeropiccola kit you have my most profound sympathy.  You are venturing into the dark, mysterious world of the HECEPOBs, from which many an enthusiastic modeler has never returned. 

Come to think of it, I can't recall having bumped into the Aeropiccola name in recent years - though it used to be fairly common.  Model Expo, which I tend, rightly or wrongly, to regard as the definitive American guide to the world of the HECEPOBs, apparently doesn't carry Aeropiccola kits any more.  I wonder if the company has gone out of business.  If so - good riddance.

jtilley, etal; An interesting thread which has grown much larger than I had anticipated. It did wander off the original subject of US Navy 74's but it is an interesting tangent none the less. I have toyed with the thought of aquiring the Heller/Airfix 1/100 Victory at times so the redirection of the discussion towards the Victory has been an interesting one. To briefly redirect the conversation back to the american ships......since they existed into the era when photography was just beginning and some of them existed into the very early 20th century, are there any photographic records that may exist showing these ships? I know they may not show them as they appeared when fitted for sea duty but anything would be helpful to get an idea as to their construction.   

Interesting question.  Mr. Silverstone's The Sailing Navy, 1775-1854 contains (pp. 25-26) photos of three of them:  the North Carolina, Vermont, and Ohio.  The North Carolina, according to the picture caption, is shown "as receiving ship in New York in the 1860s," the Vermont "as receiving ship at Brooklyn Navy Yard after the Civil War," and the Ohio "as receiving ship at Boston during the 1870s."  They're all quite interesting shots.  All three ships still have more-or-less full rigs, though the Ohio's spars seem to have been cut down considerably and all three have their topgallant yards sent down - and there appear to be no sails on the yards.  (I gather the masts and yards were left in place to provide some rudimentary training for the new recruits.)  The shot of the Vermont has a Civil War-vintage field gun on the pier in the foreground, and the Ohio's rigging is festooned with drying laundry.  All three seem to be painted in the remarkably unattractive scheme that was in vogue at the time:  black hull with white stripes through the gunports, the stripes being continued over all the bow ornamentation - including the figurehead.

I've never had occasion to do any research about these ships.  Two of those three photos are credited to the Naval Historical Center (the other one doesn't have a credit line for some reason).  The NHC may well have some more shots of them.  It also would be worth checking Donald Canney's book; I really need to get a copy of that one. 

Are the photos clear enough to see stern gallery decorations? I'm sure as receiving ships they have the spar deck enclosed as so many did. Is there not any online sites that may have photos of these ships? I'll try a google search and see what comes up but I have a feeling not much if anything will be found other than brief text histories.

Thanks to all for a fantastic and very interesting discussion.

Here's a quick question: wasn't Joshua Humphreys the fellow responsible for the Constitution? That ship has a fine reputation for sailing, but if I read the comments above correctly, Humphreys's 74-gun designs didn't sail as well.

Has anybody analyzed how his 74-guns designs failed compared to how well his 44-gun designs succeeded?

Regards,

According to Mr. Silverstone's book, the only ships of the line designed by Joshua Humpries were the original Columbus and Franklin (the ones authorized in 1799), which were never completed.  Of the ones that did see service, the Independence and Washington were designed by Edmund Hart, the Franklin (of 1815) and Pennsylvania by Samuel Humphries (the son of Joshua Humphries), the Columbus (of 1819) and the Delaware class by William Doughty, and the Ohio by Henry Eckford. 

The photos in Mr. Silverstone's book are pretty small (about 3 1/2" square), so there's a limit to how much detail can be seen in them.  I imagine lots more is visible in the original glass plate negatives - if those have survived.  Only one shot, that of the Vermont, was taken from astern.  The transom is only faintly visible; there appears to be some sort of simple stern gallery projecting from the upper deck level.  None of the three appears to have her spar deck "decked over."  Putting two and two together, I imagine the gundecks provided ample living space for the sailors being "received."  The Ohio looks like she's been fitted with masts and yards (lower yards and topsail yards only) designed for a smaller ship, but the other two look quite seaworthy at first glance.

I haven't tried to find these photos on line.  The Naval Historical Center does offer a photo service, but my home computer has trouble fighting its way through it.  I'll try to remember to make another attempt on the office computer, which seems to have a good bit more muscle for wrestling with such things.

jtilley wrote:

As I also mentioned earlier, sloops of war, brigs, and other smaller British warships often had main armaments consisting of carronades.  Whether those weapons could be said to have been carried "below decks" is, I guess, a matter of definition.  A sloop of war, brig, or smaller vessel didn't have a full-length, covered gundeck - though I guess if one looked hard enough one might find a few that had carronades under their quarterdecks or forecastles.

Sorry, I did not see your earlier post.

Actually, some would seem to have had a full length, covered gun deck.   There were several instances where captured small frigates as well as surviving older 6th rates being re-rated as sloops at various stages of the Napoleonic war.  Unless significantly modified these would have had something like a covered gun deck. 

You are right, Essex was rated a 32.

 

 

  

jtilley wrote:

According to Mr. Silverstone's book, the only ships of the line designed by Joshua Humpries were the original Columbus and Franklin (the ones authorized in 1799), which were never completed.  Of the ones that did see service, the Independence and Washington were designed by Edmund Hart, the Franklin (of 1815) and Pennsylvania by Samuel Humphries (the son of Joshua Humphries), the Columbus (of 1819) and the Delaware class by William Doughty, and the Ohio by Henry Eckford.

Ah, that was my confusion. Thanks!

How much of an influence did Joshua Humphries knowlege and experience have on the design of later ships, both frigates and larger by other designers? I see his son was involved on Pennsylvania. Also what happened with William Doughty, he and Joshua worked closely on the 44 gun frigates. Did Joshua's son later work with Doughty? 

Wow, that's a lot of questions without easy answers! 

So far as I know, the best discussion of the old designers is in Chapelle's History of the American Sailing Navy, my copy of which is at the office and not within reach.  There are brief sketches of a couple of them on Wikipedia.

At any given moment one individual held the title Chief Naval Constructor, who, with his drafting table, was crammed into the attic of the original Navy Department building.  I'd have to get the Chapelle book out to put together the list, but I know Samuel Humphries and Doughty both occupied the position.  (I don't think Joshua Humphries ever did.  The Department of the Navy was created in 1798, after he'd completed his designs for the first frigates.  I don't think he designed any warships for the Navy after that.)

A book about the history of the office of Chief Naval Constructor during the sailing ship era might be worth writing.  My impression is, though, that the documentation about the subject  is pretty sketchy.  Just who exerted how much influence on what ship is probably beyond figuring out.  

John,

I just got back from vacation and saw your comment regarding my building of the Aeropiccola HMS VICTORY.  Please don't worry; although I am travelling the HECEPOB dark side, I won't be seduced by it.  This kit is probably the most crudely manufactured kit I have ever had the displeasure to build!  Roughly 1/180 scale, I have had to use parts from the Airfix VICTORY to enhance the Aeropiccola kit, particularly the gunport lids, the dummy barrels, the fife rails, the gratings, and the boats.  Although I believe that there are many fine HECEPOB kits, notably the more expensive ships-of-the-line, they are far, far, far too expensive (especially given the state of the economy and fuel prices!).  Anyway, I digress . . .

Bill Morrison

jpk,

There is a full-page painting of the North Carolina in the book I referenced at the beginning of this thread. It shows her healing to starboard from the aft port quarter, giving good detail of her stern.  The citation says "By courtesy of the Office of Naval Records and Library".  You should be able to find it easily enough.  There is also a full-page starboard side painting of the Ohio with the same citation.  There are depictions of many of the other 74 and 80 gun ships but they are very small and show very little detail.  I hope that it helps!

Bill Morrison

Thanks to all who've contributed......

Sorry to be a little late with this, but I came accross this print depicting the 74 gun ship America, and it has remained one of my favorite ship images..

 

 

 Found at:

The Scrimshaw Gallery

I don't see anything about the research behind the painting, or if it is just the Artist's

interpretation ..  The Artist's bio is quite respectable.. 

Been reading the comments here about US 74 gun ships and while this is not really a modeling or painting comment it seems I remember a "sea story" that I read many years ago which involved some early post revolutionary war politics, hot tempers, and intrigue in which at least 2 74's may have been involved. What I remember is a US warship which was fitted with a figurehead featuring perhaps someone like Alexander Hamilton (not sure at all) or someone like him. Whoever it was seemed to be very popular with many and absolutely loathed by many others. There were threats agains the warship in question and it was rumored that a reward was being offered for the head of the figurehead. According to the story I read years ago the ship in question was moored, possibly in Philadelphia or Norfolk between two 74's to protect it. During a particularly dark and rainy night someone took up the challenge, boarded the ship at the bows and equipped with a saw managed to remove the head. Apparently the reward was duly paid and the miscreant (big word for a modeler like me) escaped with his reward. If anyone has ever heard of this story it would be interesting to know which ship, which historical figure, and who did the decapitation. If there's any truth to this old story it may be the only "action" that any US 74 gun ships may have seen.    Rick Martin

Rick:

The ship in question was the Constitution and the figurehead in question was of Andrew Jackson. This was in the 1830s and the Constitution's captain at that time had the figurehead made and mounted as a tribute to President Jackson. However, many folks did not like Jackson and on a dark rainy night the figurehead was decapitated. The Constitution was moored between two ships. This is a true story and I believe at least a portion, if not the entire Jackson figurehead survives to this day. I am not sure what museum holds it though.

The story is told in Tyrone Martin's A Most Fortunate Ship should anyone wish to look it up and flesh out the details.  

Russ

For Russ39---AHaa, I thought it was something like that but as old age creeps up on me I sometimes forget the important details. I was pretty sure it was a true event but couldn't remember the name of the person in question. I recall first reading about this incident while still in high school about 350 years ago. Won't say I'm old but my first text books in HS were done on stone tablets. Thanks for the info. Rick Martin

Rick Martin wrote:

For Russ39---AHaa, I thought it was something like that but as old age creeps up on me I sometimes forget the important details. I was pretty sure it was a true event but couldn't remember the name of the person in question. I recall first reading about this incident while still in high school about 350 years ago. Won't say I'm old but my first text books in HS were done on stone tablets. Thanks for the info. Rick Martin

Maybe they were on stone tablets, but there were only two or three historical events to learn back then, lucky for us!

Slightly (but only slightly) more seriously - I find some arithmetic about American history sobering.  If we date the beginning of "modern" U.S. history to 1788 (the ratification of the Constitution and the holding of the first federal elections), the country is now 220 years old.  I'm 57 (almost 58) - a figure that, by most people's definition, puts me slightly on one side or the other of the line between "middle age" and "old age."  By the aforementioned definition, I've been around for more than 25 percent of the country's history.  And almost half of it has taken place since my father was born in 1912.

Also sobering - freshman-level college survey courses in U.S. history are generally divided into two semesters (or quarters), with the break at 1877.  The first time I taught the second half of that sequence was in 1975, so the course had to cover 98 years.  Now it has to cover 121.  So the material supposedly covered by that course has increased by almost a quarter just in the time I've been teaching it.  (Conclusion:  they really ought to give us three semesters to cover the whole span of American history.  But when I suggest such a thing the people teaching world history - with two semesters to cover everything, everywhere from prehistory to the present - fall down laughing.) 

Most sobering of all:  the freshman class that just started at the joint where I work includes some people who were born during Operation Desert Storm. 

The U.S. really is a young country.  And I feel old.  Think I'll go to bed. 

Imagine my joy when I checked in at the NROTC Unit and found out that I had my dream job of teaching "The History of Sea Power" to the sophomore midshipmen, and then the plunging realization when they told me that the class material started in 1775 (or so). 

Turned out that was the NROTC name for the course; the school name for the course was "Sea Power Practicum", and therefore the tunnel vision was (fairly) reasonable.

Aside from that, though, I'm not all that wild about your math, Prof.  I think I'll go listen to 40 year old music and build a model.

Rick

Regarding the sad story of the Constitution and her Andrew Jackson figureheads - the most thorough account of the incident I've encountered is in one of the books I assign in my freshman-level U.S. history survey course:  Andrew Jackson:  Symbol for an Age, by John William Ward.  He analyzes the "Jackson image" and where it fit into the typical American's perception of what his country was about.

The Constitution went into the Boston Navy Yard for an overhaul in 1833.  The commandant of the yard was Captain Jesse Elliot, one of the Navy's more controversial characters.  (He was, among other things, the officer who, in command of the Niagara, had so irritated Oliver Hazard Perry during the Battle of Lake Erie that Perry had transferred his flag to her in order to bring her into the fight.  That, at least, is how Elliot's numerous critics told the story.)  Her figurehead was in bad shape, and Elliot, a Jacksonian Democrat, thought it would be appropriate to install a portrait of Jackson as a replacement.

While the figurehead was being carved, Jackson pulled one of his more memorable and controversial stunts:  he got into a titanic war with the Bank of the United States and pulled the federal government's funds out of it, thereby precipitating a national financial panic.  At that point, as Professor Ward puts it, "even those who had been able to find kind words for the President because of his Nullification Proclamation [against John C. Calhoun and the South Carolina Legislature] relapsed into the customary New England habit of vituperating the tyrant in the White House."  Boston newspapers launched attacks on the idea of putting Jackson on the bow of the city's favorite frigate, and Elliot was threatened with tar and feathers. 

The figurehead was completed and installed.  Then, on the night of July 2, 1834, somebody, in the middle of a noisy rainstorm, sawed the head off it.  The culprit was never caught; the Constitution sailed for New York, where she was fitted with a new figure of Jackson.  (Until the new one was ready, Elliot had a flag with five stripes on it draped over the mutilated one - symbolizing the five New England states that had threatened to secede from the Union during the War of 1812.)

The story of what happened afterward gets pretty amusing - and, as Ward puts it, the severed head gets "ubiquitous."  Several accounts of dubious reliability identify the perpetrator as a Cape Cod sea captain named Dewey.  One source says he walked into the White House and presented the head to Jackson, who glared at him for a minute and then said, "close the door, Captain Dewey, and then sit down and tell me how you did it."  Another says Dewey gave the head to the Secretary of the Navy, who passed it on to Jackson, who reacted by saying:  "Make that man a postmaster."  Yet another says that somebody or other arrested Captain Dewey and locked him in a local insane asylum for two and a half months.  Dewey supposedly had somebody make him a box of business cards, each bearing a picture of a saw and the words "I came, I saw, I conquered."  Unfortunately the existence of Captain Dewey isn't confirmed by any reliable contemporary source. 

My favorite version of the aftermath comes from the pen of somebody named Russell Jarvis, who published a short biography of Captain Elliot.  Jarvis (quoted by Professor Ward) says that Nicholas Biddle, the president of the Bank of the United States, paid a visit to Boston shortly after the beheading.  "While he [Biddle] was there...some of the most leading, the most active 'Whig' [i.e., anti-Jackson] politicians, particularly those connected with the monied institution, to the number of forty-four, invited him to an evening entertainment at one of the Boston coffee-houses.  After the cloth was removed [i.e., after dinner, when it was time for the serious drinking to start], the servants were sent from the room, the doors locked, and, -- Bostonians! blush while the revolting story is told! THE HEAD OF THE IMAGE WAS BROUGHT IN, LAID UPON THE TABLE AND BACCHANALIAN ORGIES WERE HELD OVER IT!!!"  

It sticks in my head that one of the two Jackson figureheads is (or used to be ) in the Naval Academy Museum and the other in the Museum of the City of New York.  That's my notoriously unreliable memory talking, though.  I couldn't find any mention of them on either museum's website.

For those interested in US 74-gun ships of the line, please join: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usshipsoftheline/?yguid=76355191

It does not cost a thing to join. We have compiled a large data base of links and files on these little known US Navy warships including hundreds of period paintings, drawings, plans, and photos of models of these interesting ships. It is a big change from the endless repeat of pictures and information on HMS Victory and other similar European warships. These American warships may be little known and did nothing of particular fame but like the Polaris FBM submarines they were a successful deterrent.