"ALVARADO HUNTER"
A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
By Rear Admiral Caspar F. Goodrich, U. S. Navy
INTRODUCTORY
For some time past I have thought that too little is generally known of our minor naval heroes, men who served their country faithfully; took their full share in her battles; on occasion offered up their lives on the altar of patriotism, their last great sacrifice; but, who, from causes beyond their control, failed to achieve the national distinction of a John Paul Jones, Barry, Hull, Decatur, Bainbridge and Farragut among others whose memory their fellow countrymen still delight to honor. It was but natural, therefore, that I should gladly seize upon the opportunity, so kindly extended by Lieutenant George T. Emmons, U. S. Navy, of running over some of the papers accumulated and preserved with scrupulous care by his father, the late Rear Admiral George F. Emmons, U. S. Navy. Almost the first item to meet my eye contained the charges against the late Lieutenant Charles G. Hunter, U. S. Navy, with the sentence of the court and the public reprimand pronounced by his commander-in-chief at the time of the Mexican War, This, a cause célèbre of that day, is referred to more or less briefly in all naval histories. From the episode which gave rise to the court martial, Hunter acquired the soubriquet of "Alvarado," by which he has since been universally known. The finding in Admiral Emmons' papers of copies of the original documents in this affair seemed a call to put into practice my rather vague idea of reviving interest in the sailors whose service in subordinate capacities, however valuable, still lack that public recognition to which they appear to be entitled. To the query, "Why not begin with Alvarado Hunter?" I could make no reply other than an acceptance of the task which chance appeared to have allotted me. If I can depict the splendid gallantry he displayed on the Mexican coast and tell of the grave injustice to which he was subjected in consequence, I shall have discharged a portion of a self-imposed duty; but fairness to all concerned necessitates an attempt to bring to light the character of the man himself, with his faults, errors, misfortunes as well as his virtues and his successes, for Hunter's nature was an extraordinary mosaic of strengths and weaknesses.
Early Years
The subject of this sketch was born November 9, 1809, in Trenton, N. J., the son of an eminent lawyer of that city. He was admitted to West Point on July 1, 1824, as appointed from the state of New Jersey. On November 30 of the same year he tendered his resignation for reasons not to be found, the records of that institution having been almost completely destroyed by tire in 1838, but it may be presumed that he preferred a naval career and sought transfer to the web-footed branch of the service. His warrant as midshipman was dated November 9, 1824. He joined the U. S. S. North Carolina, 74, from which, at Port Mahon, February 18, 1826, he forwarded the formal acceptance of his warrant. Why this long delay and what he did between the dates of his appointment and his acceptance are not known. He served three years on board of the North Carolina, then two more on board of the schooner Porpoise and the frigate Java, still in the Mediterranean. After an absence from home of nearly five years he returned (probably in the Java) to be examined for promotion. On February 20, 1830, he was made a "passed midshipman," thus mounting the first step of the hierarchical ladder.
It is about this time that the official record begins to show evidence of Hunter's disposition, which was certainly wayward if not indeed occasionally quarrelsome. The particular occurrence in illustration had a tragic ending. It may thus be summarized. Towards the close of the year 1829, at a dinner in Philadelphia, a Mr. G. made a remark which was considered offensive by a Mr. D. The dispute was amicably settled. Early in 1830, Dr. D., a brother of D., received an unpleasant anonymous letter and charged G. with its writing. G. denied the charge and sent to D. a challenge which D. refused to accept. Now appeared on the scene Midshipman Duryee as G.'s friend and William Miller, a promising young lawyer of Philadelphia, as D.'s friend. Midshipman D. denounced D., who challenged him. A Lieutenant Westcott turned up as Midshipman D.'s friend. Being a strict interpreter of the code, W. declared that Midshipman D. should not meet D. until D. had met G. A written request that a joint conference be held by friends of Duryee and D. was refused by Miller who did not wish to reopen the controversy. Hunter, as Duryee's friend, visited Miller and obtained a promise that the written request just mentioned should be destroyed. After Miller had burnt all the copies believed to exist, the letter appeared in print, whereupon Hunter charged Miller with the responsibility of the publication and challenged him. Miller, having declined the challenge, was posted as a coward and had to fight. The duel took place March 21, 1830, near Chester, Pennsylvania. Miller was killed at once. Gazing at the prostrate form, Hunter said: "Gentlemen, I assure you that I had no enmity against that man. His blood must rest upon the heads of others who dragged him into the quarrel." It was averred by those who knew Lieutenant Hunter well that remorse for this fatal act haunted him through life, inducing a restless craving for distraction of mind which made constant excitement a necessity to him. Ten days later all the naval officers implicated in this sad affair, including Hunter, were summarily dismissed by President Jackson.
We should not judge Plunter and his colleagues too harshly or by the standards of to-day, when nothing is more unusual or seems more barbarous than the duello. In his time the "code" was not only reverenced in theory, but was followed as a practical guide in the conduct of officers and of those who called themselves gentlemen. None the less, this instance appears to have been exceptionally cold-blooded and unnecessary. A contemporaneous obituary of Hunter states that:
warrants were issued for his arrest, and he was forced to flee to avoid apprehension. He first went to Boston, and from thence to Montreal. He soon after returned in disguise to New Jersey, and remained for some time secreted in the house of a Mrs. Griffiths, in the town of New Brunswick. While so secreted he became enamored of his protector's daughter, and was subsequently married to her. When the commotion caused by the duel had in some measure subsided, he went to Washington, obtained an interview with General Jackson, explained all the facts connected with the duel, and solicited to be restored to his former position. The President listened silently to the young man's appeal, and answered it by saying, "I will think of the matter." The next day young Hunter received notice that through the partiality of the President he was restored to his former post.
This is not strictly accurate, for he was put at the foot of the list of passed midshipmen and not allowed pay for the time he was out of the navy.
Part of the year of his restoration (1833) he commanded the schooner Shark, one gun, employed in the protection of timber on our southern coast. From the Shark he was transferred to the sloop-of-war Falmouth, 18 guns, in the West Indies squadron. His promotion to the grade of lieutenant is dated June 24, 1834.
His next cruise, 1837, on board of the frigate United States in the Mediterranean, was marked by his court martial for "gross and ungentlemanly conduct" and "misstating facts." The whole affair seems trivial, not to say amusing. The United States was lying in Port Mahon, Minorca Island, in the company of some other vessels, notably the French and British flagships. To create diversion, the American officers arranged a race on shore, Hunter backing a horse against a mare, the former to receive a stated distance allowance. At the conclusion of the race one of the judges, without consulting the others, declared the horse "distanced"—a finding which Hunter, who was close to the distance line, saw to be incorrect. He therefore at once entered a vigorous, not to say noisy, protest which naturally occasioned some dispute. Perceiving the confusion, his commander-in-chief, Commodore Jesse D. Elliott, rode up to the scene on a jackass, gesticulating wildly with a heavy walking stick, which he also used to prod his reluctant mount, and calling out repeatedly to Hunter "not to separate the officer from the gentleman." To this Hunter replied each time that he had not and never did. Whereupon the irate commodore ordered him off to his ship, put him under suspension and three days later brought him before a general court martial. The evidence, as solemnly printed in Executive Documents of the 25th Congress, makes delightful reading. Incidentally we get an idea of the real Hunter as known to his contemporaries. Witnesses testifying as to his character spoke of him as of "an energetic disposition "; as in manner "rather earnest and determined"; as "generally quick and with feeling." Of the charges preferred against him Hunter was "fully acquitted."
Did that end the matter? Quite the contrary. In his written defence he refers to Elliott's age, rank and achievements in such handsome terms as to make the latter believe them to have been sarcastic—which they doubtless were. So immediately he court-martialed Hunter again for using "contemptuous and satirical language to his commander-in-chief." The result was the same as in the first trial; the court promptly acquitted him. Whereupon Hunter preferred charges against Elliott and sent them to the Navy Department. No action followed.
It is probable that Commodore Elliott, chafing under his failure to discipline Hunter and resenting Hunter's report to the Secretary of the Navy, sent him home at the earliest opportunity; for he was on leave the first of January, 1838, and was kept off duty until some time in 1839, when he joined the receiving ship at Norfolk. That he was again on leave January 1, 1841, is a bit suggestive of another row, of which, however, no record has been found.
On board the sloop-of-war Fairfield in the Mediterranean he made a three-year cruise which seems to have been peaceful so far as he was concerned, although marked by the mysterious murder at Port Mahon in 1842 of his mess-mate Patterson, the sailing master of the Fairfield. Late one night, while descending the hill by the winding path which led to the landing place and preceding, at some little distance, Hunter and the Fairfield's surgeon, Patterson was attacked and stabbed to the heart. His cry brought his companions to his side, the surgeon to his aid, Hunter to pursue the murderer, undoubtedly a native, who unfortunately made his escape in the darkness.
During 1845 and 1846 he is briefly noted in the official records as on leave or waiting orders.
The Alvarado Affair
Since men-of-war of that day were, with few exceptions, sailing vessels, our naval operations in the Gulf at the time of the Mexican War were hampered by the lack of steamers. To supply this deficiency the government purchased a number of such craft, among which was the Bangor, built in 1844 on the Delaware to ply between Boston and Bangor. She was an iron paddle wheeler of only 230 tons, armed with one small gun and carrying a crew of but 50 men. Renamed the U.S.S. Scourge, she was sent early in 1847 to Vera Cruz under the command of Lieutenant Charles G. Hunter, who was directed to report to Commodore Matthew C. Perry, then the commander-in-chief of our naval force in Mexican waters. The speed of this tiny boat may be inferred from the fact that she was 12 days making the passage from New York to Havana where she spent two or three days, probably for coal and provisions. A man of Hunter's energy would not tarry unnecessarily on his way to the seat of war. We can imagine his disappointment on reaching Vera Cruz the very day, March 28, 1847, it was surrendered. However, an opportunity for service against the enemy offered itself immediately. How well he profited by it!
Some 30 odd miles to the southward of Vera Cruz lies the town of Alvarado at the mouth of the river of the same name. At the time of which we are writing it was so heavily fortified as to be looked upon, next to Vera Cruz, as "the Gibraltar of the Gulf."
Twice during the previous year it had been attacked by our ships-of-war. On both occasions the latter were beaten off. These failures had created a great deal of dissatisfaction in the United States and an ardent longing in our fleet to retrieve a defeat. Its capture was furthermore desirable because at Alvarado was a large number of mules and horses much needed by the army in its contemplated advance on the city of Mexico.
Between General Scott on shore and Commodore Perry afloat a joint expedition was at once planned against Alvarado. General Quitman, with a brigade reinforced by the 4th Regiment artillery, was to march overland and cut off the retreat of the enemy, whom Perry was to shell out of the town. The scheme was sound. There seemed to be no likelihood of its not being carried out most successfully to the great glory of Perry and Quitman.
How important this enterprise was deemed at Vera Cruz is seen in the following extracts from Vera Cruz letters of the day:
General Scott has shown great promptitude in following up his victory. A sufficient force to take Alvarado was immediately despatched under General Quitman.
Commodore Perry, with some of the smaller vessels of the navy, was to sail down to Alvarado to co-operate with General Quitman's brigade, and if resistance was made to attack the place by land and water.
Since Perry's heavy ships were sailing vessels he ordered Hunter to proceed in advance and "watch the port." What Hunter actually did is told by a lieutenant of Perry's flagship, the frigate Potomac, William H. Parker, who, in his "Recollections of a Naval Officer," gives us this story:
As we approached the bar, we saw that something was wrong as the vessels were all under weight instead of being at anchor. Very soon the Albany hailed us and said that Alvarado was taken. "By whom?" asked our captain. "By Lieutenant Hunter in the Scourge" was the reply. And so it was. Hunter, the day before, had stood in pretty close and observing indications of flinching on the part of the enemy, he dashed boldly in and captured the place almost without firing a gun. Not satisfied with this, he threw a garrison, consisting of a midshipman and two men, on shore and proceeded in his steamer up the river to a place called Tlacotalpan which he also captured.
When General Quitman arrived with his brigade and the place was gravely delivered over to him by Passed Midshipman William G. Temple, he was greatly amused and laughed heartily over the affair.
The accounts say that when the fleet got down to Alvarado, and Lieutenant Marin with five men to garrison a town and seven forts, delivered the command of them to Commodore Perry, all the officers and men in the squadron were convulsed with laughter, and their roars induced the inhabitants of Vera Cruz to believe Alvarado was bombarded.
The following is Hunter's own account of the affair, and the articles of capitulation of both the towns captured:
U. S. Steamer "Scourge"
Alvarado, April 2d, 1847.
Sir: I have the honor to report that on the afternoon of the 30th ultimo, at about 5 o'clock, I arrived off the bar of this river; that I immediately opened upon the forts with round shot and shell; but finding a heavy surf on the bar, and seeing indications of a norther, I stood off and on during the night. In the morning I again opened on the forts, when I discovered a white flag on the beach, and, shortly after, the captain of the port and a pilot came off with a flag of truce, offering a surrender of the place, and informing me that the Mexican troops (to the number of three or four hundred) had, after our attack, evacuated the forts and city the night previous, having first fired all the government vessels, spiked a portion of the guns, and buried others in the sand. With a view of preventing any further destruction of public property, or a return of the Mexicans before your arrival, and for the purpose of securing an unobstructed entrance for the squadron, I came in, anchored off the town, received their surrender, (a copy of which I herewith enclose) hoisted the American flag under a salute of twenty-one guns, and then, hearing that the garrison of the place were hastening up the river with two or three vessels loaded with arms, ammunition, and other public property, I left Passed Midshipman Temple, with five men, in command of the place, and stood up the river after them. On the way up I succeeded in capturing four schooners; one I burned, as I could not get her off; another I left behind as worthless; the third I towed down; and the fourth is now coming down under the command of Passed Midshipman Pringle. At 2 o'clock in the morning I anchored off Fla-co-Talpam, a city of about 7000 inhabitants, sent Lieutenant Marin ashore to the alcade, assembled the junta and demanded an entire and unconditional surrender within half an hour. My demands were at once complied with, and I herewith transmit a copy of their surrender.
I am, &c.
(Signed) C. G. Hunter, Lt. Comnd'g.
To Commodore M. C. Perry, Commander-in-Chief of the Gulf Squadron.
The Terms of Capitulation
Town of Fla-Co-Talpam, 1st April, 1847—2 o'clock A. M.—Present, the constitutional Alcalde and citizens who compose this illustrious council on the one side, and on the other Captain C. G. Hunter, of the United States steamer Scourge, accompanied by the second lieutenant of that vessel, M. C. Marin; the object being to enter into such quotations as shall be suitable for the welfare of the inhabitants, and better understanding with that nation, the terms expressed in the following article were agreed to by both parties:
First.—The town of Fla-co-Talpam hereby declares its perfect neutrality towards the forces of the United States, and also its entire submission to them as long as existing circumstances continue.
Second.—In consideration of this, the said Captain, in the name of the government, whose commission he holds, binds himself that the right of individuals shall be respected, as also their persons and private property likewise the Catholic religion, and the free exercise of its forms of worship.
And for the fulfillment and faithful observance of this compact, both the contracting parties hereby bind themselves by all the forms usual; and in testimony of the same, they have hereby subscribed their names to two copies of this contract, each of the same tenor and date. Done by the Alcalde, presiding officer of this council, and the before-named second lieutenant, who assisted in arranging this negotiation, and who is commissioned to sign for the before-mentioned Capt. Charles G. Hunter.
(Signed) Pedro Atalpico
M. C. Marin, Lieut. U. S. N.
The town of Alvarado having been left defenceless, surrenders itself to the United States steamer Scourge, Captain C. G. Hunter, on the following conditions:
First.—That the forces of the United States will respect and protect the Roman Catholic religion.
Second.—That they solemnly guarantee complete and entire protection to the inhabitants of this town, and all species of property, it being distinctly understood that no public edifice or private house shall be taken or used by the United States forces, unless some previous arrangement shall have been made with the owners.
Jose Ruiz Parra,
President of the Council.
M. C. Marin,
Lieut. U. S. Navy.
Alvarado, 31st March, 1847.
A newspaper of that time says:
We can imagine the feelings with which Commodore Perry must have surveyed his squadron of vessels and the military force on shore, all set forth in the pride and puissance of war to take the town of Alvarado, which had been already taken by a single vessel without firing a shot. Had Commander Hunter not converted the blockade into an attack, and permitted the land and naval forces to come down upon, and reduce the city, the credit would have been given to the imposing force, and another laurel leaf would have graced the chaplets which Perry and Quitman wear. But as it is, the vessels lie quietly off the town, which the Scourge has taken, or have proceeded North, and Gen. Quitman having marched far enough to find his intended work done to his hands, has quietly marched back again.
It may be proper, but we think Commodore Perry should have mentioned how Alvarado was taken and not permit the impression to go to the department that the combined forces reduced the city. Commander Hunter's name is not mentioned, and it deserves that for the gallantry of the act, at least, even if he is under arrest for transcending orders.
The foregoing paragraphs give the facts in the case. To compare them with Commodore Perry's official report which follows makes one marvel how so big a man as he really was could have descended to such a level of spiteful pettiness:
United States Flag Ship "Mississippi."
Anchorage Anton Lizardo.
April 4, 1847.
Sir: I have the honor to inform the Department that immediately after the surrender of Vera Cruz, General Scott and myself concerted measures for taking possession of Alvarado. Although it was not expected that any defence would be made, it was thought advisable that strong detachments, both of the army and navy, should be employed, in view of making an imposing demonstration in that direction. The southern brigade under General Quitman was detached for this duty, and the naval movements were directed personally by myself [sic]. As it had been anticipated, not the slightest opposition was offered by the enemy, and the river and town were quietly occupied on the 2d instant by the combined forces of the army and navy.
General Quitman took up his line of march this morning, on his return to Vera Cruz, and I left for this anchorage to arrange an expedition to the north; Captain Mayo, with a small naval detachment, being placed in command of Alvarado and its dependencies, in which may be embraced the populous town of Tlacotalpan, situated about twenty miles up the river.
In this expedition I have had the good fortune to become acquainted with General Quitman and many of the officers of his command, and have been gratified to observe a most cordial desire, as well with them as with the officers of the navy, to foster a courteous and efficient co-operation.
The enemy, before evacuating the place, burnt all the public vessels, and spiked or burned most of the guns, but those that were concealed have been discovered, and I have directed the whole number—about sixty—either to be destroyed or shipped, with the shot, on board of the gun boats, as they may be found of sufficient value to be removed.
With great respect, I have the honor to be your most obedient servant.
M. C. Perry,
Commanding Home Squadron.
The Hon. John G. Mason, Secretary of the Navy.
It is a tax on one's credulity to be asked to believe that this report is authentic. The answer may He in Tertullian's remark, "Credo quia impossible est." Yet the formal official document purports to describe events in which Perry had no part or lot and it does not even mention the man who had the wit to perceive and the courage to act, who after taking Alvarado pushed up the river some 30 odd miles, anchored off Tlacotalpan in the middle of the night, sent Lieutenant Marin ashore with a peremptory demand that the ayuntamiento or town council should meet at once and surrender the place, giving them half an hour for this purpose else would he "open on the town and order the troops to advance!" Since he had not a soldier or marine within call, was there ever in all history a more splendid, more audacious bluff than this? Yet it worked to perfection. Having- left one midshipman and five bluejackets to hold and garrison Alvarado with its seven forts he left a lieutenant and three seamen to occupy Tlacotalpan with its 7000 inhabitants.
Lest it be thought that this account is exaggerated here are Hunter's letters in extenso.
U. S. Steamer "Scourge "
Alvarado, March 31st, 1847.
Sir: The surrender of the City must be made in 30 minutes from this time and must be unconditional.
If at the expiration of that time they do not agree to our terms I will open upon the town and order the troops to advance.
(signed) C. G. Hunter
Lieutenant Commanding.
To Lieutenant M. C. Marin at the Governor's House Alvarado.
To be read to the Justices in Council Assembled.
No. 2.
U. S. Steamer "Scourge"
Off Tlacotalpan, March 31st.
Sirs: In order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and in accordance with the spirit and feeling of civilized nations, I demand in the name of the United States of America an entire and unconditional surrender of the town of Tlacotalpan.
I have the honor to be, Sirs,
Yours &c,
C. G. Hunter.
To the President and Ayuntamiento of the City of Tlacotalpan.
And what reward did Hunter receive for these magnificent services worthy of a Gushing? He was court-martialed! Incredible again, but true. The official record must once more be quoted in proof, and it is only proper that it be quoted in full.
Charges and Specifications of Charges, preferred by Commodore M. C. Perry, Commander-in-Chief of the U. S. Naval Forces in the Gulf of Mexico, against Lieutenant Charles G. Hunter, U. S. Navy, late Commanding the U. S. Steamer "Scourge "
Charge First.—Treating with contempt his superior, being in the execution of his office.
Specification 1st.—In that the said Lieutenant Charles G, Hunter U. S. Navy, did on the 31st day of March, 1847, being then in the command of the U. S. Steamer Scourge, enter the Port of Alvarado, and did there arrogate to himself (the said Lieutenant Charles G. Hunter) the authority and powers that are vested only in the Commander in Chief, by entering into stipulations for, and receiving the surrender of Alvarado and its dependencies.
Specification 2d.—In that the said Lieutenant Charles G. Hunter, U. S. Navy, did on the 31st day of March 1847, with the U. S. Steamer Scourge under his command, proceed from Alvarado to the town of Tlacotalpam, without any orders or authority, and there demanded the surrender of the said town of Tlacotalpam, and enter into and sign articles of capitulation, although aware of the immediate approach of the Commander-in-chief, to whom alone such powers are confided, thus treating with contempt the authority of his Superior Officer being in the execution of his office.
Specification 3d.—In that the said Lieutenant Charles G. Hunter, U. S. Navy, did on the 31st day of March 1847, in proceeding from Alvarado to Tlacotalpam, capture four schooners; one of which he set on fire and burned, and another he abandoned, thus substituting his own will for the discretion of the Commander in Chief, who was within a few hours reach of communication; and treating with contempt the authority of his superior; all of which in violation of the laws of the United States as contained in "an act for the better government of the Navy of the United States, approved April 23d, 1800."
Charge Second.—Disobedience of Orders.
Specification 1st.—In that the said Lieutenant Charles G. Hunter, U. S. Navy, having been ordered to report to Captain Samuel L. Breese and to assist in blockading the port of Alvarado, did in disobedience or disregard to said orders enter the harbour and take possession of the town of Alvarado.
Specification 2d.—In that the said Lieutenant Charles G. Hunter, U. S. Navy, having been ordered on the evening of the 1st of April 1847, to report himself in person to the commander in Chief, at his quarters in the town of Alvarado, at 10 A. M. of the following morning, did disobey said order. All of which is in violation of the laws of the United States as contempt in "an act for the better government of the Navy of the United States, approved April 23d, 1800.
(signed) M. C. Perry
Commander-in-Chief
U. S. Naval Forces
Gulf of Mexico.
In justice to Hunter's memory and as showing how lofty were his professional principles, how great his respect to his seniors, even to one who had so grossly abused the prerogatives of his office, how plain and straightforward his speech, let us hear what he himself said in his defense against such unheard of charges.
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Court: I will not trouble you with unnecessary verbiage, but proceed at once to the point. My orders were, (as stated in the 1st spec. 2d charge) to report to Capt. Breese, and to assist in blockading Alvarado. I did not consider them (can they be fairly considered?) as forbidding me to annoy the enemy in every way in my power, as modifying in the slightest degree the general duty of every officer having a military command in time of war, to molest and cripple the enemy in every possible way. On the evening of the 30th March, being sufficiently near, I opened upon the fort at Alvarado with shot and shells. Apprehensive of a norther, I stood off and on during the night, with a strong breeze and rough sea. Towards morning, it having moderated, I stood close in to the bar, and again opened upon the forts. Shortly afterwards, I discovered two horsemen upon the beach, holding a white flag, and a boat crossing the bar at the same time. This boat brought me an offer on the part of the authorities to surrender the city. Permit me here to observe, Mr. President, that as there are two sides to every question, so there may be two results to every affair of this kind. Alvarado is now in our possession; but let us suppose that it was not to be: that we had been foiled a third time in our efforts to take it. What would have been my position, I say, if I, having refused the offer of the town when the authorities were ready to yield it—the American forces had been a third time baffled in their efforts to capture it? Mr. President, the worst that can now befall me is a trifle to the infamy and disgrace which would have remained attached to my name, perhaps, long after I was in the grave. If you, Mr. President, (or any member of this honorable Court,) will fancy yourself in my place when the offer of capitulation reached me, I think you must perceive that it placed me in a difficult, a most embarrassing position—one that might have got a much more experienced officer than myself into trouble. I had to decide upon the disobeying of my orders on the one hand, and the possible consequences which my refusal to take such a responsibility might lead to on the other. I had to decide between two courses—the one leading to present personal safety, and the possibility of future infamy; the other to some personal risk, perhaps, but by which the honor of the navy and my honor, at least, were safe. I have stated thus the view which I took of my position, and the motives on which my actions were founded. I will not say, Mr. President, that under similar circumstances you would have taken a similar view of your position; but I think I may say without the danger of dissent, here or elsewhere, that taking the same view I did, you or any other member of this honorable court, would have done just what I did. My summons for the surrender of the city of Alvarado, was not made until the authorities hesitating to sign the articles of capitulation, I thought myself entrapped, when it became necessary to use strong measures and strong language. Upon the reception of that summons, they signed the articles, and in the name of the United States of America, I took possession of Alvarado and its dependencies. Shortly afterwards, I learned that after our attack the evening previous, the garrison had fired the public vessels, spiked and buried their guns, placed a large quantity of government property, chiefly munitions of war, on board of several small vessels, and were proceeding up the river in the direction of the city of Fla-co-Talpam. I followed, as I conceived it to be my duty, and captured one of them loaded with arms, &c., that got ashore, and burned her to prevent her falling into the hands of the enemy. Another, worthless to ourselves or the enemy, and abandoned, and two others, I brought to Alvarado. The pursuit of these vessels led me to the city of Fla-co-Talpam, where I arrived about two o'clock in the morning; trusting to the suddenness of the attack, I ordered the junta to assemble, and demanded within thirty minutes an entire and unconditional surrender, and my demands were complied with. I contend, Mr. President, and gentlemen of the court, that all that happened after the capitulation of Alvarado, followed as a natural and necessary consequence, (not, however, foreseen by me,) when I first accepted their offer to surrender. I contend that my error consisted in the original disobedience of my orders, (which, from what I have since learned. I regret.) and that what I did afterwards, I was in a great measure obliged to do. Knowing that several small vessels of the enemy, laden with military stores, were within my reach, could I doubt that it was my duty to destroy or capture them? Seeing, from the conduct of the enemy at Alvarado, that a panic prevailed among them, and that there was a prospect of success, I demanded the immediate and unconditional surrender of Fla-co-Talpam. I contend that these two acts followed as a necessary consequence to my first disobedience of orders. Of the motives that led to that step, I have made a honest exposition to the Court, and I hope that you will consider them, together with the difficulties of my position, and my want of experience in such matters, as some palliation of my fault. I regret my error, apart from the trouble it has brought upon me. I regret it. because it has given offence to the commander-in-chief. (I speak from rumor only—I have no certain knowledge of the fact,) as I have heard that was an understanding between the commander-in-chief and the commanding general ashore, that there was to be a combined attack made by the squadron and army, on these places; it might thus seem that I had sought to rob of its just participation in this affair that arm of the service which in the progress of this war, has acquired for itself and for our country, so much honor and glory. Nothing could be farther from my intentions—I knew nothing of any such understanding. One or two matters remain to be touched upon. I am charged in the two 1st spec, of the 1st charge, with arrogating to myself the powers of commander-in-chief, in signing articles of capitulation, &c., although aware of the immediate approach of the commander-in-chief. In regard to the first, my error was one of simple ignorance. I knew that I had obtained possession of these places, and meant of course to hand them over to the first senior officer that might approach; but I had not the remotest intention of exercising any of the powers of commander-in-chief. I knew, or perhaps I should rather say had reason to believe, that the commander-in-chief would arrive in a short time; but I did not know precisely when, still less did I know that he was nearer than Vera Cruz.
In the 2d specification of the 2d charge I am charged with having disobeyed an order to call at a specified time at the commander-in-chief's quarters.
Gentlemen, I was so absorbed by the difficulties that surrounded me, that his order to me to report myself, entirely escaped my recollection—this may seem a lame excuse, but it has at least the merit of truth. But, Mr. President, none of us are entirely free from occasional acts of forgetfulness; the honorable member yesterday who gave in his testimony, made a mistake, and I must say that the confidence with which I leave my case in his hands has been increased by the handsome manner in which he corrected his error when reminded of it.
Mr. President and gentlemen of the Court, I have been much mortified and excited, by the many and numerous difficulties that surround me. I have aimed at nothing but the glory of my country—the honor and dignity of the service to which I belong. I leave my case with perfect confidence in your hands.
C. G. Hunter, Lieut. Comdg.
It is difficult to believe that in spite of these manly words he was found guilty of all the charges, except that of not reporting to Captain Breese, preferred against him. He was sentenced "to be dismissed the squadron" and reprimanded by the commander-in-chief, the reprimand "to be read on the quarter-deck of every vessel of the squadron, in the presence of the officers and crew." With what zest must the latter have performed his part in this regrettable affair may be inferred from his own letter to Hunter.
U. S, Flag Ship "Mississippi"
Anton Lizardo, April 9, 1847.
Sir: I enclose herewith the findings and sentence of the Court Martial convened for the 7th instant for your trial, which imposes upon me the task of expressing in the form of reprimand, my opinion of your conduct as proven before the Court. However lenient the sentence in your case may seem to be, I have approved of it, as I can conceive of no punishment more severe than a dismissal from a Squadron actively engaged before the enemy.
The sentence while it condemns in a most signal manner your conduct, cuts you off from further association in this Squadron with men whose partial endurance of the most trying duties, and whose character for courage, obedience, and subordination have won my highest approvation.
How different has been your course. Scarcely a day on the Station and you disobey orders, arrogate to yourself the duties belonging to a Commander in Chief, talk of opening upon the Town, and of ordering the Troops to advance when you had but one Gun, and not a solitary soldier, and all "for the purpose (as you say) of securing an unmolested entrance of the squadron" into the River. It would be difficult if not impossible to point to another instance of similar folly, and the most charitable construction that can be given to it, is that in the elation of a first command you have truly enjoined yourself actually in command of the Naval and Military departments then approaching and within a short distance of the scene of your Exploits.
With due Respect,
(signed) M. C. Perry
Commanding Home Squadron.
To Lieut. Charles G. Hunter
U. S. Navy.
The reader will note the concluding expression of this astounding document "with due Respect."
It is not necessary to contend that a navy held in such leash as the irate Perry prescribed would lose all initiative and become practically valueless—nor to hold, had Perry summoned Hunter and after congratulating him upon one of the most gallant deeds in our naval history, had said, "My dear Hunter, don't you think that next time you might leave something for me?" that he would have had in Hunter a passionately devoted subordinate ready to go through fire and water for his chief.
As it was, Hunter was sent home in disgrace, ruined and embittered for life. From the effects of this colossal injustice he never recovered. How indeed could he? The writer believes that much of his subsequent misfortune may be fairly ascribed to the outrageous treatment he received off Alvarado.
After Alvarado
During the weeks succeeding this tragic episode the newspapers at home printed full accounts of it, for the most part rejoicing in a glorious, an almost unique, victory and condemning Perry in unmeasured terms for his misrepresentations, his unfounded claims to a personal participation and for his shocking punishment of an unusually gallant and energetic subordinate. Some, however, agreed with Perry. One side of the question was typically expressed by the United States Gazette of May 7, 1847, which said that "inferior officers must obey the orders of their superiors, under any circumstances of temptation to do otherwise or the efficiency of the navy or army is at an end." For this paragraph the Gazette is rebuked by the New York Commercial Advertiser in the rejoinder that
the spirit of all instructions was complied with by the very act of going beyond the letter. Nelson thought so; Taylor thought so; though neither of them might have suspected that the delay proposed was for anything but prudence, not for the purpose of transferring laurels…The Commodore rests under the suspicion of having envied the Lieutenant…the little glory of conquering a town, and not allowing him, the Commodore, to come and take the glory of a victory which he had not achieved, for which he was not prepared and of which he should have been willing that some other person should have the glory.
Lieutenant Hunter is the theme of general remark and censure…A little more of the spirit in the Navy he has displayed would do it no harm and might add much to its efficiency in the present war.
The general sentiment throughout the country was that Hunter was a hero and Perry wholly in the wrong. Nor are Perry's supposed motives spared. The Washington correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger writes:
The reprimand of Lieutenant Hunter by Commodore Perry is, I can assure you, as much commented upon here as in Philadelphia and other places. It is looked upon as extremely ill-natured and wholly unwarranted by the circumstances of the case. Alvarado was, next to Vera Cruz, looked upon as the Gibraltar of Mexico, and the taking of it, with one gun, has turned the whole formidable expedition against it into ridicule. This it is for which Commodore Perry lectured him…He…destroyed all the glory which would have attached to the laying siege to or taking of the place by storm; he accomplished by a coup de main what had to be the result of scientific arrangement and execution; and hence his act of unparalleled "folly." Every disobedience of orders, however successful, must be punished, but there is no necessity for dipping the rod in vinegar! That is a luxury which ought not to be indulged in, in time of war.
Much indignation also was felt among Hunter's colleagues in the navy who could not be indifferent to this humiliation inflicted as the consequence of dash and courage. So to punish the latter sapped all the springs of naval daring. One officer writes home,
This treatment of as gallant an officer as ever trod deck, for performing as gallant an act as could well be conceived, and with a success which makes his conduct entirely justifiable, will never receive the sanction of President Polk.
Unhappily for Hunter nothing was ever done to right the wrong under which he labored, and the sanguine writer of the foregoing lines wholly misjudged the President.
Hunter was sent home, broken in spirit, to arrive at Norfolk May 25, 1847, a passenger in the U. S. S. Ohio. Proceeding thence to New York,
He was received at the American Hotel with cheer after cheer by the enthusiastic crowd which assembled on learning his arrival. The people are always just—they know how to reward a gallant action, and sweep technicalities aside when they interfere with strict justice.
Hunter was indeed the idol of the hour. Escorted to the Governor's room at City Hall by a large concourse of citizens, he was presented with "a costly sword." Dinners were held in his honor, swords were given to him, and he was known as "Alvarado" Hunter to his dying day. A deputation of his fellow townsmen of Trenton received him at the railway and under military escort conducted him to his dwelling, whence in the evening a procession. civic and military, was formed which marched to the court-house where, with appropriate ceremonies, was presented to him a silver pitcher "in testimony of his gallant conduct."
All these manifestations of public favor failed to salve the wound inflicted upon his proud spirit. From the day of his unjust punishment his downfall began to proceed slowly but surely to the end. "Poor Hunter, his fate was a sad one after all. Soon after his arrival at home his friends got him the command of the schooner Taney and in her he made a sort of roving cruise in the Mediterranean. He was not allowed a purser, and being extremely careless with his accounts found himself heavily involved upon his return to the United States. His friends came to his assistance and succeeded in getting him another command." So says Parker in his "Recollections." That this shortage involved no moral turpitude on his part and was due to inattention to duties of a novel description may be assumed, since Congress was easily persuaded to make good the deficiency in the government funds placed in his hands.
After a long period on waiting orders he was once more employed afloat. In 1853 he was given the command of the brig Bainbridge and sent to join the Brazil squadron under Commodore William D. Salter.
While Hunter's life was marked by many unusual happenings, the last episode is so extraordinary in character that it can only be explained on the ground that his mind had become unbalanced. So far as can be ascertained these are the facts in the case.
A difficulty of some kind had arisen at Asuncion, Paraguay, between the local authorities and the American Consul. Hunter, who was nothing if not impetuous, begged Salter to let him go to the scene in the Bainbridge and help straighten out the matter. For reasons not given Salter refused the request. Not unlikely he feared that Hunter would be as much out of place in a diplomatic embroglio as a bull in a china shop. Chafing under this rebuff and irritated by Salter's unreadiness to exert pressure where pressure seemed to him needed, Hunter when next sent on a cruise deliberately squared away for home and deserted the squadron, something no really sane man could have done. Arriving at New York early in January, 1855, he issued an address in his defence to the American people.
The defence was characteristic of the man. "Vessels of war," he said, "are sent abroad for the sole purpose of protecting the lives, property and rights of our citizens; and any man who would consent to remain in command of a vessel of war where her use was perverted, i.e., sent where she was not needed when great necessity existed for her elsewhere, would he acting unworthy of his position."
The offence was too flagrant to be condoned and President Pierce ordered his name to be summarily stricken from the rolls. On January 29, 1855, he ceased to be an officer of our navy.
After his dismissal he took up his abode in Philadelphia. The failure of his hopes and his great misfortunes weighed heavily on his mind, his hair became rapidly grey with grief and all his acts betrayed him to be a broken-hearted man.
As might have been expected, he did not long survive his degradation. He was admitted to "The New York Hospital" February 28, 1856, as suffering from a disease contracted in Mexico during the war and there five days later his soul sought and found a peace he had not known on this earth.
He is said to have left a wife and daughter who at the time of his death were in Spain.
The writer, having made earnest but hitherto unsuccessful efforts, will be glad to have from any source information which will enable him to get in touch with Hunter's descendants (if any there be) or with other relatives of his.
Hunter's life was full of romance, the tragic element prevailing. It is impossible to review it without experiencing a melancholy regret that so much talent was wasted partly through his own fault, partly through the fault of others. His finer qualities were too fine not to have been better utilized.
In a brief obituary, a writer in the Pennsylvanian of March 7, 1856, says that
no one who knew him had any but feelings of respect for him. His faults, if they were faults, were errors attributable to an impulsive disposition, and were far outweighed by his manly and solid virtues. He was as generous as brave, and impetuous. His melancholy demise will be regretted by all who knew him, as well as by those acquainted with his singular and romantic career.
The highest tribute to his ability is that of his colleague and squadron mate, Lieutenant W. H. Parker, who in his "Recollections" stated that Hunter "was one of the best naval officers of his day." Notwithstanding his faults and errors which were both many and grave, to look upon his end as it really was and to imagine what it might have been, had he not been so shamefully treated by Perry, makes one hope that never again shall such cruelty be inflicted on a gallant sailor, that for all time the one historic victim of unpardonable official injustice in the navy of the United States may still remain the intrepid "Alvarado" Hunter.