(SEE PAGE 925, WHOLE NO. 163)
JAMES MORRIS MORGAN.—That is a good criticism which Mr. Park Benjamin writes on the story of the "Brood of the Constitution," but it has one small defect: he has mistaken the "Brood."
Before pointing out the errors in his criticism published in the May-June number of the UNITED STATES NAVAL INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS, I wish to disclaim being the originator of the title "Brood of the Constitution" as applied to the class of 1860. I first heard the name some 30 years ago, when several naval officers were discussing the Samoan episode, where Commander Leary (a member of the class of 1860), while in command of the little wooden sloop-of-war Adams, cleared his ship for action and bluffed the captain of a modern cruiser out of his amiable intention to shell a native village in which there were women and children. One of the naval officers in the company, chuckling over the outcome of the affair, remarked "that the German captain must have received the jolt of his life when he ran afoul of one of the 'Brood of the Constitution.'" Having made this explanation as to how I obtained the title for my story, I will proceed to point out some of the inaccuracies contained in Mr. Benjamin's article.
First. He says the Constitution came to Annapolis in t859. Now, according to the U. S. Naval Registers of 1859-60, the Constitution was at that time "in ordinary" at the Kittery Navy Yard, Portsmouth, and the entries in the log book of the Constitution show that she sailed from Portsmouth harbor under the command of Lieutenant (Admiral) David D. Porter, on August 5, 1860, and arrived off Annapolis on August 18, and was moored off the Naval Academy on the morning of August 22, 1860.
Second. Mr. Benjamin asserts that "it (the class of 1860) was not the first class to live on board, for that was the entering class of 1859." Now, how could the class of 1859 have lived on board of her when she was not at Annapolis at that time?
Third. He says: "The class of 1860, it is true, began its career on the old vessel, but was removed when it became necessary to refit her to defend the station against a threatened Confederate attack. After General Butler arrived with his troops, she was hauled out into the bay…" I am authorized by Rear Admiral Charles E. Clark (retired), who is a member of the class of 1860, and who was on board of the Constitution at that time, to say "that when the Maryland arrived at Annapolis with the 8th Massachusetts Regiment on board, she went alongside of the Constitution and then steamed out into the bay, with all the troops on board, as Governor Hicks, a Union man, feared that the State of Maryland might attempt to secede if they were landed, as the 6th Massachusetts Regiment had already been attacked as it marched through the streets of Baltimore, and that it was only a portion of the class of 1860 that was put on shore from the Constitution to reinforce the midshipman battalion and assist in defending the Academy from a threatened attack by the mob, and that the cadet officers and many others of the class were kept on board the ship, and that those who went on shore were only out of the vessel for four days, and furthermore that the class of 1860 was the only one of the classes who were trained on that historic ship which ever had the honor of going to sea in her.
Rear Admiral Clark further makes the statement that "the class of 1860, while at Newport, instead of living on shore and occasionally drilling on the Constitution," as stated by Mr. Benjamin, "lived on the ship and occasionally drilled at Fort Adams, and instead of having been only a part of the year on the Constitution they went on board of her in September, 186o, and left her in September, 1861, when they were removed to the Atlantic House, the temporary Naval Academy at Newport." I ask then, how is it possible that the class of 1862 could have been the first class of midshipmen to have remained on board of the famous old ship for an entire year?
In my story of "The Brood of the Constitution" published in the January-February number of the UNITED STATES NAVAL INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS I can assure Mr. Benjamin that I had no intention of detracting from the fame or merit of any of the other classes who passed their first year at the Naval Academy on board of the glorious old ship, nor did I mean to claim that the class of 186o was the only "Brood of the Constitution," but only intended to remind the younger generations of naval officers that owing, in a great measure, to the fortunes of war, it was "par excellence" "The Brood of the Constitution," and in support of this claim I gave a synopsis of the war records and distinguished services of as many of the class as I could obtain at this late day. Mr. Benjamin, ignoring my account of the large number of the 186o date who covered themselves with glory at the battles of Mobile Bay and Fort Fisher in the Civil War, and at Manila and Santiago during the Spanish War, comes back at me with the claim that, while his class was on board of the Constitution, they gazed with the deepest awe. upon "Charley" Stewart, Goldsborough, Paulding, and Farragut. (Why not Dave?)
P. S.—I met Rear Admiral John H. Upshur (retired) to-day (June 13) and discussed with him Mr. Benjamin's article. Admiral Upshur said: "You tell Park Benjamin that I say he is a wee bit mistaken in his data. I was the executive officer of the Constitution in I86o at Annapolis and in 1861 at Newport, and Clark and yourself are perfectly accurate as to the facts stated in your answer to his criticism."