THE AFFAIR OF THE BLANCHE
(October 7, 1862)
An Incident of the Civil War
By Rear Admiral Albert Gleaves, U.S. Navy
After the proclamation of the blockade by President Lincoln, the navy was charged with the duty of maintaining it, and for this purpose the fleet was divided between the Atlantic and the Gulf coasts.
In the first part of the war blockade running was generally done by small sailing vessels running between the Capes of Virginia and the Rio Grande but these were soon driven off the sea by the Federal cruisers, and their places were taken by steam vessels built for the purpose either in England or Scotland. They were light draft vessels of about 500 tons displacement, and considerable speed.
As a rule they were manned largely by Englishmen, and often were commanded by English naval officers who obtained leave of absence for the purpose, and who sailed under assumed names. The risk and adventure and the chance of easy fortune attracted many bold spirits into the service, and blockade running soon was reduced to a science. The compensation for officers and men was large; the captain's pay for one voyage was about $5,000, the pilot received $3,750, officers were paid from $750 to $2,500 and the crew's wages were $250; besides this all hands had ample opportunities for speculations of their own. Cotton that was worth 40 cents a pound in Texas sold for $10 in England. The runners loaded with munitions of war, medicines, clothing, etc., in England, and returned with cargoes of cotton valued at $150,000 to $200,000. Each voyage was a get-rich-quick adventure.
After the coastwise traffic was broken up, the Bermudas and Bahamas became the points of arrival of the vessels from across the Atlantic, and thence to Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, and St. Augustine on the Atlantic coast, and Havana and Matamoras in the Gulf.
The blockade runners not only kept the navy occupied, but they also gave the diplomats and international lawyers much to discuss, and there were several affairs which brought the United States to the verge of war with more than one European power. This article deals with one of the most celebrated cases which might have involved us in war both with England and Spain.
It is the story of the United States cruiser Montgomery, commanded by Commander Charles Hunter, U.S. Navy, and the destruction of the Confederate steamer General Rusk, afterwards renamed the Blanche. While in the Confederate service she had entered Havana under the Confederate flag, but at the English consulate she was given up to an English subject, who documented her at that consulate, after which she sailed under English colors. The Blanche was one of the boldest and most audacious of the runnets. During her career she had run the blockade six times, and Admiral Farragut was anxious for her capture. She ran between Matamoras and Havana, and time and time again she had escaped capture by slipping in behind the reefs, which mark the western end of Cuba, and keeping within the neutral zone of Cuba. She was a two-masted iron side-wheeler of 500 tons, with a walking-beam engine, painted black, and drew about seven and a half feet of water.
Hunter was a well-known, dashing officer who had entered the navy in the early thirties, but owing to ill health, he had retired from the service several years before the war, and was living in Newport when the war broke out. His residence on Kay Street was only a door or so from that of Mrs. James Lawrence, the aged widow of the hero of the Chesapeake. Hunter was a favorite of Mrs. Lawrence, and when the news came that Fort Sumter had been fired upon, Hunter rushed in to tell her that he was leaving immediately for Washington to ask to be put back on active duty. He said he had all his uniform except a sword, and the tradition is Mrs. Lawrence gave him a sword that had belonged to her gallant husband.
Hunter was commissioned a commander in the navy and assigned to the command of the Montgomery, a gunboat attached to the East Gulf blockading squadron which was commanded by Rear Admiral Farragut.
The Admiral had known Hunter for years, the families were intimate, and Hunter was one of Farragut's "boys." Farragut knew his determination, his courage, his willingness to go ahead and take chances. One day, so the story goes, in the cabin of the Hartford, the Admiral spoke to Hunter of the exploits of the Blanche and of how pleased he would be if she were captured, and he said something to the effect, "If you fall in with her, Charlie, you will know what to do."
Of course it is impossible to know what was actually said, or what was in Farragut's mind or even if the conversation actually occurred, but it has long been believed in Hunter's family the Admiral conveyed the impression that if Hunter captured the runner even without the law, and should thereby suffer the extreme penalty to satisfy an irate nation, the Admiral would turn his blind eye to informalities, and at all events would come to the rescue if aid was needed, after the war should be over.
Hunter was not the man to ask questions or to beg for details. The hint was sufficient. Doubtless he made up his mind that if he had the opportunity he would end the career of the Blanche, one way or another. The opportunity came and he seized it; at the port of Mariano about five miles west of Havana the burnt and twisted hull of the Blanche was soon lying on the beach. Thirty-six years later. Lieutenant John Hood, of the navy, in another war drove ashore and wrecked the armed Spanish liner Alfonso XII at Mariel a few miles further to the westward.
Before dawn on October 7, 1862, the Montgomery, several days out of New York, lay to, off the light on Morro Castle, Havana. When day broke she lowered a boat, and her captain went ashore to communicate with our Consul General Schufeldt. It so happened that also lying-to waiting for daylight to go into port was the English mail steamer Trent, which exactly eleven months before, that is November 7, 1861, had been held up in the Bahama Channel by the U.S.S. San Jacinto and the Confederate Commissioners Mason and Slidell taken out and removed to the man-of-war.
Hunter had a long interview with Consul General Schufeldt, himself formerly a naval officer (and soon to re-enter the navy and serve with great distinction), but what they discussed is not a part of this narrative. Hunter did not return to the Montgomery until about one o'clock, when the ship got under way and stood to the northward and westward.
About an hour later a steamer was sighted to the southward and westward, standing to the eastward close in shore. At this time the Montgomery was about five miles from land.
The next chapter of the story is briefly told in the ship's log.
October 7, 12—4 p. m.
At 2 saw a steamer inshore of us; fired a blank cartridge from the rifled gun, but she would not stop. At 2.20 a shell being jammed in the rifled gun fired it toward the rebel steamer. The shell struck 600 yards from ourselves only. She then showed English colors, and stopped her engine heading for shore.
At 2.30 thinking her ashore sent in two boats armed, in charge of Acting Master Arthur to examine her. At 3 the boats boarded her, and it was almost immediately perceived she was on fire. Got men into the boats again, and in ten minutes she was in a solid sheet of flame.
Two men from the steamer got into one of the boats, and were brought to this vessel.
The steamer was the General Rusk from Indianola for Havana, with cotton cargo. At the time of the boats boarding her she was aground. At 3.45 the boats returned; took them up, and kept away down along the coast, steering a safe distance from land. At 4 Moro East, distant-eight miles.
In the subsequent investigations by both the Spanish and American naval courts, the facts as stated in the log book of the Montgomery were practically substantiated. These facts were amplified by the various witnesses, but other allegations derogatory to the Americans were entirely disproved; the most serious of these was the accusation that Master Arthur and his men had set the steamer on fire.
It is now convenient to turn to the Blanche. She was commanded by a native of New Orleans named R.H. Smith. According to his testimony before the Spanish court "in the ever faithful city of Havana," as the record runs, the Blanche sailed from La Vaca, Texas, on September 29, for Havana, with a cargo of 569 bales of cotton valued at $142,000. On October 4, she had stopped at the port of Mulato at the west end of Cuba for twenty- four hours to coal and pick up a pilot. When the Montgomery fired the blank shot she put into Mariano, and sent a boat ashore with the pilot to request protection of the Spanish authorities. The Sea Alcalde and his son responded to the call, and Captain Smith delivered the Blanche to the Alcalde, who hoisted the Spanish colors over the English.
At this time the boats from the Montgomery were seen pulling toward the Blanche, the Montgomery being at the time about one mile from shore. The captain, observing that the men in the boats were armed with pistols and cutlasses, slipped the cable and beached his ship.
When Master Arthur boarded the Blanche he demanded the ship's papers, and was given only a provisional register, a crew list, a table of crew's wages, and a certificate of ownership; there was no clearance, no bills of lading, no manifest. As a matter of fact it was proved afterwards that the ship's books and papers had been destroyed by the captain's order in the fire room, just as the boarding party got alongside.
Arthur told the captain that he would have to take the ship out, and sent an engineer whom he had brought with him into the engine room, which was on the main deck, to see if the engines were all right; almost simultaneously with the report that they were, fire broke out below, and in a few minutes the ship was blazing from stern to stem.
The Blanche had offered no resistance, nor had any personal violence been committed by the Montgomery's men.
When the fire drove the people out of the ship, they all got ashore except the pilot, and an English passenger named Clement, both of whom escaped in the Montgomery's boats. The pilot was transferred that night to a passing Spanish schooner bound for Havana, and Clement was given passage to Pensacola whither the Montgomery was bound and where he arrived on October 11.
Hunter was apparently well pleased with his action, as was also the Admiral. Under date of October 14 he writes to his wife:
We leave in the morning to blockade off Mobile. I wrote you a few lines from Havana a week ago today. I went on shore in my boat and remained three hours, bought some fruit and a few segars. Saw the Consul and left before noon. Got on board in an hour and was steering west along the coast of Cuba. About 2 saw a steamer south of us going east. We then only eight miles from Havana, headed towards the steamer, fired a gun at her without shot. She did not stop but was going rapidly towards Havana very near the shore. Fired a shell towards her. She stopped, showed English colors and anchored. Sent two armed boats to her. She hoisted Spanish colors over the English when she saw our boats coming and ran her on shore. Our boats boarded her, and the engineer I had sent was backing the engines when it was perceived she was on fire and crew escaping. Our boats returned on board. I remained long enough to see her half consumed and left. She was the notorious General Rusk with English papers and was called by them the Blanche. She had run the blockade five times. They were very foolish to set her on fire for if I had forcibly taken her off, the English would have made the Spanish government pay for her, and if I had met her at sea and sent her in to our ports, the court would not have condemned her.
I was congratulated by the Admiral for my good fortune in catching the rascal. I hope I may be the means of destroying half a dozen more which are in Havana to sail to any place they can get in. I am to cruise twenty and thirty miles from Mobile at my request or suggestion to the Admiral, as the steamers expect to be about that distance off just at night and run in before morning.
We arrived last Friday. I went to the Admiral's ship. He asked me to dine, met Palmer, Captain Hitchcock and Alden, pleasant dinner.
There are six or seven rebel steamers at Havana bound for any of the blockaded ports in the Gulf that they can get in. They will all have English papers—but that will not deter me from seizing them if I meet them at sea. There is a rascally Englishman at Havana, that swears that he owns the steamer or rebel sailing vessel, and then gets a register for her from the English consul.
When our boats were leaving the burning steamer two men jumped into them. One was a Spanish pilot that the steamer had taken on board at the west end of Cuba—the other an Englishman that was going to Havana from Texas. I let the Spaniard go that night putting him on board a small vessel going to Havana. The other I brought along and have taken his deposition about where the steamer was bound, where from, and that he believed that she was fired by her own crew. And now he goes to New Orleans to get to England where he was bound. He lost all his clothes.
A few days later Hunter captured the Caroline loaded with French muskets, munitions, cigars, stationery, etc. When captured she was from Havana, and endeavoring to get into Mobile.
In a letter dated October 28, describing the chase and capture of the Caroline, Hunter says:
There are two men of the Caroline's crew that were in the General Rusk when she was burnt. The Captain (of the Blanche) and all hands swore most positively that we set fire to her, and the Spanish government made a great fuss and sent out three Frigates to catch us. I hope I may be ordered home on that affair. I want to catch another rascal and then I shall think I have done my share, particularly if he is as important a one as the Caroline. I saw this same vessel when I was in Havana, she was coaling directly under the consul's windows, there are four or five other rascals there waiting to come out. I am afraid they will hear that we are waiting for them and not come this way. The men and officers are all so glad and I am happy for them and myself that the Montgomery has done something. I would not give her up for any vessel out here, unless we were going into a fight with the rebels at Fort Morgan and in Mobile Bay, then I would prefer a vessel with more guns.
Hunter speaks of the rum on board of the Caroline which he had had locked up, but which, when at Pensacola he sees one of the men "groggy," he determines to destroy:
Of this he says:
I had no legal right to do so but felt I had moral right. I stood by and saw the heads of thirty-two five-gallon demi-johns knocked off and their contents poured into the ocean.
This cruising outside is much more endurable than remaining at anchor blockading. I want to catch another rascal but our chance is diminished since the Cuyler is here too. I shall keep outside of her if I can and away from her.
I have written to William to say to Mr. Seward that the two men sent home in the Caroline, as a part of her crew were in the Blanche when she was burnt, and ought to be detained as criminals for that act,—which I see that the Captain and crew swore that we did—or the depositions of these men should be taken that the vessel was fired by the Captain or by his orders. If I am not ordered home on account of the Blanche a court of enquiry may be ordered out here to ascertain under oath all the facts of the case.
He speaks of a schooner from Philadelphia to which he sends a boat notwithstanding heavy weather "as I do not permit any vessel to pass without examining her papers."
December 10, Mobile Bar.
Commodore Bell ordered me to anchor about a mile to the west of his ship, to keep full steam always at night, to have the guns ready and men at them and ready to fire at an instant's notice, and to be ready to slip our cable immediately that any of the rebels appeared coming out; there are now nine or ten, yes I believe twelve vessels blockading—enough I should think to keep the Oreto in.
We ought to be allowed to go by Fort Morgan even if we cannot take it. I suppose Ironclads may be sent here, they can put their vessels near the fort and bang away in security and will get all the credit—while many of the vessels here have been months and months engaged in the most trying of all duties, blockading.
He speaks of a sloop they had taken, the Wm. E. Chester, loaded with cotton, nine bales of which had been thrown overboard to lighten her sufficiently to cross the bar. He had cruised about and picked up every bale,
I have written to the Admiral to know what I shall do with the nine bales of cotton that we picked up. We might have sold it at Pensacola for twenty-six hundred dollars but I was not sure I had a right to do so—and fearing that I might do wrong, and as it was a money transaction to operate for my benefit in part, I was more cautious not to assume responsibility; I would rather the whole and hundred times as much should be entirely lost than anyone say I did wrong to benefit myself pecuniarily—I rather would be broken for the Blanche affair than even suspected of wrong in any money transaction.
December 14, 1862, Off Mobile Bar.
We are still at anchor in the same position where I let it go a week since. I suppose that we are to remain here until we want coal again, which will be in five or six weeks. I saw a fortnight ago, symptoms of a little feeling on the part of the other vessels at the bar that the Montgomery was too lucky and that her being outside was considered by them to be a comment upon their want of vigilance here when we caught a vessel that had come out. I then thought that, as the Admiral is away, the next in command would, upon the plea that we were necessary at the bar, to chase the Oreto when she should come out, be detained here and so we are. We could do more good outside, but others think perhaps we are more useful here—but I cannot complain and shall say nothing unless another vessel is sent out to take our place outside, then I could ask the Admiral if our action there was not satisfactory to him and express my regrets that it was not.
It rained in torrents the day of the Blanche investigation, and Captain Hitchcock came on board and I got wet seeing him off, and it was very cold the next day. I still have hopes of being recalled on the Blanche affair; if I had not sent boats to ascertain her character I would have been much blamed by navy officers and perhaps by the government—I could not help their burning the vessel. If we had got her off before she was set on fire I do not think I would have sent her in, and if I had, of course she would not have been condemned, but the Captain thought he would get better price for his cargo and vessel from our government by firing her than by going in. I hope he may be disappointed, our government ought not to pay a penny. If we had fired her of course we should have paid for her; the affair has caused so much discussion from the wicked perversion of facts by her Captain and crew swearing to such abominable falsehoods—I would send you the result of the investigation here but it is long and does not differ from what you already know.
The following letter shows how completely surprised he was at the action taken by the Department.
At Sea. January 10, 1863.
I write with a pencil as we are under way going fast and it shakes a good deal in the cabin right over the propeller. A week ago day before yesterday (Thursday) the Circassian, Captain Eaton, arrived. I went on board the Susquehanna in the P.M. about four where I saw Captain Eaton—he told me that he had a document for me on board his vessel marked important that he was ordered to deliver to me in person and take a receipt. He said he did not know its contents—I imagined it, and felt sure that I was ordered home and was very happy. I went on board the Circassian with Captain Eaton and he gave me the sealed document which on opening I found was the following (orders to turn Montgomery over to executive officer and return in her as passenger. Also orders to executive officer). This was killing—overwhelming after suffering so much and doing all in my power to aid the government in putting down the rebellion—to be disgraced and degraded is indeed hard. I have the sympathy of the navy—of those above me—I have no doubt, many enemies among the officers below me who want to get me out of their way. Fox is their friend and not mine. They thought I would resign rather than submit to the humiliation of being deprived of my command and ordered to come home under the executive officer—I gave up the command the next day. I shall not resign until I am tried, if I am to be tried, but after that I ought to do so, or at least do no more duty while the present unjust government is in power.
The officer in charge has been polite and has not assumed at all. I have retained the sole use of my cabin and servants. I am grieved and sorrowful at my own unjust treatment, and at the critical state of the country which appears to demand it to satisfy the clamors of Spain. We must be weak to give way to wickedly false statements as sent from Havana in regard to the Blanche. The government cannot punish me more than it has done even if it takes my commission from me.
As was to be expected Spain had at once made a vigorous protest. On October 20, Mr. Tassara, the Spanish minister at Washington, addressed a long letter to Mr. Seward on the part of his government and demanding "prompt and immediate satisfaction and reparation for all the wrong inflicted and all the interests damaged by the outrage, and the burning of the English vessel, the Blanche, on the beach of Mariano (Mariel)."
The Minister summed up the "offenses" under four heads:
- Violation of the jurisdictional maritime belt of Cuba.
- Insulting Spanish authority in the person of the Sea Alcalde, aggravated by the "capture" of the pilot and taking him out of the country.
- Insult offered to the Spanish flag together with another neutral flag.
- Burning of a neutral merchant vessel without respect to existing treaties.
On November 30, Captain Hunter's brother, who was in the State Department, wrote a letter congratulating him on the capture of the Caroline but had this to say about the Blanche.
The Spanish are excessively indignant. Tassara their minister here has addressed three notes to us upon the subject, translations of two of which we have sent to the navy department to be forwarded to Admiral Farragut…The object of the Spaniards of course is to show that there was a willful violation of their territorial jurisdiction, and that the Blanche was set on fire by the boarding party from your vessel. They wish to fix the accountability upon our government. The Blanche though nominally owned by an Englishman named Wigg, is probably in reality the property of rebels, and in Texas and elsewhere on our coast is known only by the name of General Rusk…The distance (from shore) is the most important point in the case, for you had no right to assert belligerent rights when nearer than three miles, as we say, but the Spaniards claim six miles, as the limit of their jurisdiction. This claim however will not probably be assented to by us…It is to be hoped that you will get out of the scrape honorably to your professional discretion as well as spirit, but rebels and Spaniards are most vindictive adversaries.
The affair caused intense excitement in Madrid and bitter outbursts against the United States. However much the government might have wanted to save their face, the diplomatic conditions were such that an apology and disavowal were necessary. There was just a chance in Hunter's favor that might tend to mitigate subsequent action. "Admiral Farragut," writes Mr. Walter Hunter, "seems to have supposed that the government ordered an investigation of the circumstances of the case of the Blanche, because it suspected he (Captain Hunter) had been remiss in failing to bring out the steamer as a prize. It does not seem to have occurred to him that there was any impropriety in his chasing and boarding a vessel within Cuban jurisdiction. Such being the case I find reason to hope that the court-martial will visit lightly an excess of zeal which involved a breach only of international obligations. The danger lies in the furious and persistent demands of Spain for the swift and condign punishment of the commander of the Montgomery and the anxiety of our government to avert her wrath and to toss some Jonah to the whale."
Under date of December 9, 1862, Lord Lyons, the British minister, in a letter to Mr. Seward presented on behalf of his government a claim for reparation of damages and injuries to British owners in the destruction of the Blanche.
To the Spanish minister Mr. Seward replied on October 23, in effect that the department had not received any information of the transaction mentioned, promised no delay in ascertaining the merits of the case, etc., and to Lord Lyons on December 10, he replied to the same effect.
It is worth noting that more than two months after the event, the Secretary of State had received "no reports or other information from its own agents of the material facts."
The Spanish Government presented claims for a total of $311,859.29 ½ and demanded the punishment of Commander Hunter. The English claims for damages were included in the Spanish claims.
It is interesting to read that as late as April 24, 1863, Mr. Seward wrote to Lord Lyons that the claim "would be given due consideration."
It was a much easier matter to settle the account with the naval officer. He was selected to be tossed to the whale!
Commander Hunter was brought to trial by a general court-martial which convened at the Boston navy yard in February, 1863. The president of the court was Rear Admiral S.L. Breese; and the members, Commodore Henry Eagle, J.L. Lardner, Captains Jas. Glyun, John Pope, T.T. Craven, and Chas. Green. The judge advocate was Harrey Jewell, Esq., of Boston.
Hunter was tried on two charges, the first violating the territorial jurisdiction of a neutral government. The first specification of the charge alleged that he took forcible possession of the Blanche within the territory of Spain, defied and insulted the Alcalde, and forcibly took away a Spanish and an English subject and held them as prisoners. The second specification alleged that he caused the Blanche to be set on fire.
The second charge was scandalous conduct tending to the destruction of good morals. There was only one specification under this charge, and it alleged that he extorted from the English subject a statement on oath that the Blanche had been set on fire by her own crew.
The Spanish naval court examined thirty-eight witnesses, and the Boston court thirty-seven witnesses. It was clearly proved that no personal violence had been offered the Spanish authorities—it was claimed that one of the Montgomery's men had slapped the face of the Alcalde's son—that the ship was set on fire by order of the captain of the Blanche, who had prepared for such an emergency before he left Indianola, to prevent her falling into Federal hands, and that the statement of the English subject that Hunter had forced him to sign under oath the ship had been fired by her own crew was false. It was further proved that in beaching his ship, the captain of the Blanche had been guilty of barratry.
Captain Hunter spoke at some length in his able defense, and he made clear an important point, which evidently however did not carry weight with the court. He said that admitting for the sake of argument that he had violated not only Spanish jurisdiction but neutral Spanish jurisdiction, that unless coupled with an allegation of disobedience of orders, un-officer-like conduct or the like, a violation of neutrality or jurisdiction is not an offense, within the meaning of the Articles of War or the Statutes of the United States to justify punishment. The Articles of War are silent on this head.
This argument is sound. A few years ago an officer was tried by general court-martial for grounding his ship, and under the charge of neglect of duty, the specification was alleged that he did not come on deck when a certain light was sighted, but this allegation was not coupled with any offense—as there is nothing in the regulations which requires a captain to come on deck when a light is sighted. The result was that the court acquitted the officer.
Hunter was found guilty of the first charge, and first specification; the second specification was not proved. He was honorably acquitted of the second charge. The court sentenced him to be dismissed from the navy.
Hunter's case was a cause célèbre, and it was generally thought in the navy that he had been treated with undue severity.
Admiral Farragut wrote to him on June 17, 1863:
I was much pained that the government should have deemed it necessary to order you home for the investigation of the case of the Blanche as it deprived me of your services, which I much needed, but it should not have given you a moment's disquietude, as you knew that your Admiral and Brother Officers all considered that you had done your duty, and with that zeal that all good officers will do it; and leave it with the Judiciary to unravel the entanglements of the laws of nations, which it is not to be supposed an officer is at all times to be the proper judge.
When afloat I shall always be most happy to have you under my command; and although I do not expect again to have that honor I hope we may often meet on shore to talk over the pleasures and excitements of the past.
And again on August 24, 1863:
I received your kind letter, and regret that mine was so long in reaching you. I have not been able to get the particulars of your trial but am astonished to learn from you that you were dismissed by a court; I can understand that the government might find it convenient to sacrifice you to preserve our relations with Spain, at a moment when we could not afford to involve ourselves with an additional enemy, but I had no idea that you had been condemned by a court of naval officers. The government must have found some different testimony from that which I saw but I still hope all will come right; when I visit Washington I will find out all about it. I fear it will not be in my power to visit Newport, if I visit any of the watering places it will be Sharon to get the rheumatism out of my shoulders.
Hoping that we may yet serve together, and be co-workers to balance that old account (and not in a Privateer).
Captain Thornton A. Jenkins wrote:
U.S.S. Oneida, July 5, 1863. (Pensacola)
I am sorry, truly sorry that you have been ordered home on account of that rebel vessel Blanche burnt by the Captain and her crew.
I have an abiding faith that Mr. Welles and his associates will do you full justice when they are made acquainted with the true state of the case. It is mortifying to an officer who is ever ready to sacrifice all comforts of life to endure every hardship of our misunderstood profession with faithful performance of duties some of them too of the most delicate and complicated character to be censured. Still I am greatly mistaken in Mr. Welles if he does not see that you have full justice done to you in the end.
Let what may come and what may be done, there are those here who will never cease or fail to remember and speak of the energy, zeal and intelligence displayed by you on this station and especially on this blockade. Keep your spirits. All may be lost save honor. So long as we have our honor and full assurance of having done our whole duty let the world frown as it may, we may despise it.
Two years afterwards he received the following interesting letter from Senator Anthony:
Washington, January 21, 1865.
One day, last week, I sat next Vice-Admiral Farragut at dinner. I am sure you will be pleased to know that he spoke of you in high terms, as a most valuable and efficient officer; and he thought you had suffered very unfairly. Seward was present, and said "if you will ask for him, when you next take a command, I think he will be put back." Farragut said he certainly would do so, and added that he would like to be on the court-martial when an officer was tried for such an offense as was alleged against you.
As this was said at a private party I would not like to have it made public, but I have no objection to your reminding Farragut of it, if it would be of any service to you.
It was a matter of great gratification to Captain Hunter that nearly nine years after the affair of the Blanche one of the most distinguished officers of the navy should have shown his good will by sending him the following letter:
1409—K St., Washington, June 1, 1871.
I am solicited to be in Newport on the seventh of July next to attend a meeting or re-union of the "Army and Navy of the Gulf" of which society Admiral Farragut was the late president.
I hope you will join and become one of us. We are to meet in the Academy of Music and a banquet will follow. My family will accompany me on their way to Portsmouth, N.H., where they propose staying during the hot months. As you were one of the most earnest and self-sacrificing naval officers of the war, I desire you to join us. General Phil. Sheridan is first vice-president and I am second, and a president is to be elected.
With kindest regards to your family,
I remain truly your friend,
Theodorus Bailey.
R A.
The affair of the Blanche followed the Trent affair by eleven months and preceded the cutting out of the Florida in Bahia by exactly one year to the day. In all three cases the action of the naval officer was approved by the country, but disavowed by the government as an independent act of officers. In the words of the Secretary of State in the Florida affair, which applied to the other two, "it was an unauthorized, unlawful and indefensible exercise of the naval force of the United States."
For his part in the Trent affair, Captain Wilkes was at first commended and afterwards censured. Commander Collins of the Florida was never brought to trial; his punishment was an order to take the Florida will all prisoners back to Bahia and deliver the vessel to the Brazilian Government. However while lying in the stream at Hampton Roads, she was rammed by an army transport, but not badly injured. Later she sank at her moorings off Newport News, and the incident was closed.
Commander Hunter was dismissed from the Navy, but in 1867 he was restored, and placed on the retired list as captain.
Whatever satisfaction the Government may have enjoyed secretly in the unlawful acts of Wilkes, Collins and Hunter, it was for obvious reasons necessary to publicly disavow them. Nevertheless these officers rendered distinguished service to their country by so doing, and although they sacrificed themselves each won honorable fame.
Commodore Duncan Ingraham in the St. Louis would have violated the neutrality of Turkey by sinking the Austrian corvette Hussar in the harbor of Smyrna, if the Austrian captain had not complied with the demand to give up Martin Kosta, and for his determined action Congress voted him thanks and a sword. The commander of the British light cruiser did violate the neutrality of Chili in 1915 when he sank the Dresden in Juan Fernandez. Many similar examples could be cited if space permitted.
If history teaches anything it is this: when in doubt it is better to go ahead, act boldly and take the chances. Blind obedience to orders, "playing to the program" as the politicians say, never got a man anywhere; on the contrary, it has ruined many a career.
The conclusion of the whole matter may be summed up in a paraphrase of the words of a recent writer, "Do what you think is right, even when it is wrong."
But every officer faced with opportunity must decide the question for himself. There is no rule.