The two portraits of the Essex appearing in this number of the Proceedings show her as she probably appeared during her famous commerce raiding cruise in the South Pacific, 1812-1814. The problems incident to portraying any ship as she appeared during a specific period of her career are many and difficult. When he portrays a ship which sailed on her last cruise 140 years ago, the artist must turn to contemporary descriptions, official correspondence on file in the National Archives, and to the letters and journals of her officers and men. Contemporary illustrations were often drawn from memory and frequently embellished to suit the artist’s fancy.
In my first letter to Mr. Patterson concerning the concept of the painting which appears on the cover, I said, “I would like to have the painting represent a day of brilliant sunshine about the middle of the forenoon watch with a fresh breeze blowing, Essex on the starboard tack standing along her course ‘on an easy bowline.’ The frigate’s deck is slightly canted as she lifts on the long surge of the sea, her head is beginning to pitch downward as her forefoot buries itself in a smother of foam. The royals have been set and the main royal is being sheeted home. Hull down in the distance is Essex Junior.
Numerous accounts have been written of the Essex’ history, particularly her epic commerce raiding cruise to the South Pacific and the capture of the entire British whaling fleet in those seas; the campaigns fought by her crew against the Typee and Happah tribes of the Marquesas (the same islands which Melville was to make famous a generation later in his Typee and Otnoo); the bloody two-hour action against Phoebe and Cherub which ended in the capture of Essex; and, as an epilogue, the fantastic adventures of Lieutenant John M. Gamble U.S. Marine Corps and the midshipmen and men who manned certain of the prizes left behind in the Marquesas.*
The portrait facing this page was executed by means of a series of washes of diluted engrossing ink which, with the passage of time, develops a slight sepia tone reminiscent of the old ship prints. The portrait was originally intended as a frontispiece for my novel Meeheevee, published in 1940.
Several interesting historical sidelights have been incorporated in both portraits as a result of the assistance given me by institutions such as The Essex Institute and The Peabody Museum, both of Salem, Mass., where the Essex was built, and the Navy Department Library; also by Howard I. Chapelle, author of the monumental, History of the American Sailing Navy, and by M. Brewingtonand A. D. Wills, among others.
The rails supporting the “head” of the ship are portrayed as open headrails; in port, canvas was draped over these rails. The practice of enclosing the head of the ship did not occur until much later. No specific reference to the figurehead carried by the Essex during the War of 1812 could be found; however, it is known that she was originally fitted out in 1799 with the figurehead of an Indian holding a tomahawk in an upraised arm and grasping a scalping knife in the other hand.
The principal departure from the accepted appearance of a frigate of this era, and the item noted first by most observers, is the fact that the gunport stripe is an ochre yellow and is much wider than the usual white gunport stripe painted on most models of frigates of this period. White lead paint was costly and was carried only in small quantities, as evidenced by the list of Carpenter’s Stores. This white paint was used to touch up the ornamental scroll work and for certain interior decoration. Most of the ship’s sides were painted with a mixture containing a natural earth ochre; several planks above and below this area were painted black. The inside of the gunports was painted red. The wide gunport stripes of the Essex are shown in a contemporary print depicting her capture by HMS Phoebe and HMS Cherub on page 1536 of the November, 1933 Proceedings. The bowsprit, masts, and doublings of frigates were also painted this same ochre color.
I have read many articles and listened to numerous discussions citing quite a few authorities on the subject of whether frigates of that period carried quarter boats. Farragut, 'toho was an eleven-year-old midshipman aboard the Essex during this cruise, mentions in his Journal that a quarter boat was carried away during a heavy blow while the Essex was rounding Cape Horn. Later during this same cruise, the Essex disguised herself as a whaler, so she must have had several boats rigged outboard at that time.
The Essex was not a “flush decker” as were the Constitution, Constellation, President, and most other frigates built at this time. Her designer, William Hackett, was an older man and the hurried sketches which he produced for the Citizens Committee—for the Essex like several of her sister ships was built by public subscription—reflect the man-o-war designs of his younger days. In some respects she resembled the frigates of the Revolutionary War. Examination of both portraits will show that she was open at the waist, only the heads of the men standing in the waist can be seen through the nettings. The two figures amidships in the cover painting are shown full figure as they are walking along the gangways on either side of the waist.
The colors flying from the gaff of the mizzen contain fifteen stripes. There was no standardization as to the number of stripes or arrangements of stars until about 1818.
Compared to the Constitution class rated at 44 guns and the Constellation class 38 guns, the Essex, rated a 32-gun frigate, was one of the smaller ships of our early navy. (The Boston class rated as 28-gun frigates was smaller.) The towering masts and the projection of the bowsprit and spanker boom beyond the bow and stern tend to give the impression that the ships were much larger than their vital statistics show. The Essex’ 141'9" length on gun deck make her some 31' shorter than the World War II PC, her beam of 37' was, however, considerably greater than that of a PC.
The system of rating men-o-war by the number of guns carried was a compromise. With the passage of time and consequent changes effected by various commanders, most ships tended to carry more guns than the rated number. The Constitution class, rated as 44’s, carried from 56 to 60 guns. The battery designed to be carried by the Essex and the one actually aboard her when launched consisted of 26 long 12-pounders and ten long 6-pounders. During the War of 1812, she carried a battery of forty 32- pounder carronades and six long 18-pounders.
The change in the Essex’ main battery from long guns to carronades was a fatal one and was protested by Captain Porter prior to the war. The carronade was a short- barreled gun similar to a howitzer; it was first built at the Carron Iron works in Scotland, after which it was named. The carronade possessed a tremendous smashing effect when fired at short range and was extremely effective in the “yard arm” type of action favored by Lord Nelson and his captains. Americans, however, were accustomed from boyhood to picking off game by virtue of their marksmanship and, although they shared with their British cousins the enthusiasm and peculiar ability for the close-in hand to hand fighting of the boarding parties when ships engaged in yard arm action, they preferred to rely on long range marksmanship whenever possible. In the notable series of frigate actions during the War of 1812, the American frigates were able to stand off and with their heavier long guns, generally 24-pounders vs. 18-pounders of the British, to maul the enemy with little damage to themselves. Constitution vs. Guerriere, United States vs. Macedonian, and Constitution vs. Java were classic examples of this tactic.
The following letters written by Captain Porter are of considerable interest, as history vindicated Porter in his contention that the long guns should be returned as the Essex’ main battery. In his gallant action against HMS Phoebe and HMS Cherub when attacked while at anchor in Valparaiso, Chile, Porter was able to inflict heavy damage while the British ships were within range of his carronades; HMS Cherub in particular received heavy damage. However, when the British ships hauled off and lay to out of range of the carronades, they were able to reduce the Essex to a burning hulk with their long guns. Although I have read numerous references to these letters of protest by Porter, I have never seen them in print. Through the kindness of the Navy Department Library, I was able to obtain them from the National Archives. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time this exchange of letters has been presented in published form:
U.S. Frigate Essex near Crany Island
12th October, 1811
Sir
Considering as I do that Carronades are merely an experiment in modern warfare and that their character is by no means established I do not conceive it proper to entrust the honor of the flag entirely to them. Was this ship to be disabled in her rigging in the early part of an engagement, a ship much inferior to her in sailing and in force, armed with long Guns, could take a position beyond the reach of our Carronades, and cut us to pieces with out our being able to do her any injury. Long Guns are well known to be effective and the management of them familiar to seamen. I have therefore required of Capt Evans four long eighteen pounders to mount on the gun deck and shall on the receipt of them, send on shore some defective Carronades.
I hope Sir the reasons I have given will in your opinion justify the change.
I have the honor to be With great respect
Your Obt Serv
D. Porter
Honble Paul Hamilton
Secy of the Navy
Washington
From Masters Commandants Letters, 1810-1811 —#223
U.S. Frigate Essex near Crany Island
12th October 1811
Sir
In my letter of the 3rd inst. I had the honor to inform you that I intended /as soon as opportunity offered/ to ascertain the strength of our powder by experiment—I have done so and find that at an elevation of five degrees with powder one shot and one wad our 32dr Carronades throw a ball short of 1000 yards—was the powder proof the ball would be thrown 1087 yards.
I have the honor to be With great Respect
Your Obedient Serv*
D. Porter
Hon. Paul Hamilton
Secy of the Navy
Washington
From Masters Commandant Letters, 1810-1811 -#224
Navy Department
Oct. 17, 1811
Capt. David Porter
Norfolk, Va.
Your letters of the 12 inst. have been received.
It is not adjudged advisable to change the arment [sic] of the Essex. If any carronades are defective they are to be replaced by good ones, and not to be changed, by long guns. The powder is deemed sufficiently strong; the camboose has been ordered.
P. Hamilton
Vol. 9—Officers Ships of War, page 489
U.S. Frigate the Essex near Crany Island
25th October 1811
Sir
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th inst wherein in reply to my letter of the 12th inst you inform me that “it is not advisable to change the arment of the Essex.” I have therefore prevented the completing of the Gun Carriages for the 18 Pdr8. that I had intended mounting.
On receiving your letter I was apprehensive that you had been impressed with a belief that my opinion for a change of Armament was not well founded, I therefore thought it advisable to exhibit some proof that I am not solitary in that opinion.
The accompanying letters from officers, equally interested with myself in the fate of an action, have served to strengthen my belief that a change is absolutely necessary—unless no prospect of hostilities exists—you will perceive by their letters that they as well as myself have no confidence in Carronades alone, and that this want of confidence is calculated to dampen that spirit of enterprise which every officer should possess.
In wishing this change I have no motive but a desire of being able to do my duty well in action, and should there be a prospect of war, I must beg the favor of being permitted to have more long Guns: and if I cannot be indulged in my request on board this ship, should prefer being removed to a vessel that has a due proportion of them, even if she should be very far inferior in many other respects to the Essex.
Should the crankness of this ship be considered an objection to her having long guns, I beg leave to suggest that it is chiefly owing to her having too great a weight of mettal on her Spar Deck.
Should you consider the defects in the Carronades, such, as may require them to be changed, it will be necessary to send others from Washington to supply their places, as there are none at the Navy Yard of Gosport, but two which are unfit for service.
I have the honor to be With great respect
Your Obt Servt
D. Porter
Honble Paul Hamilton
Secy of the Navy
Washington
From Masters Commandant Letters, 1810-1811
—#230
Porter’s persistence finally convinced the Secretary of the Navy and his advisers in Washington, not to Porter’s desire to be rid of all the carronades but to the substitution of some of them and the lighter 12- pounders for 18-pounders to be mounted as bow and stern chasers on the spar deck.
Navy Department
Oct. 31, 1811
Capt. David Porter
Norfolk, Va.
Your letter of the 25th instant with the accompany letters from your officers, relating to the armament of the Essex and proposing a change has been received.
I feel at all times, great reluctance at making alterations in our vessels which are generally attended with great expense and but little advantage. Your motive in making the proposition you have to remove the four carronades and the long 12 pounders from the spar deck and substitute long 18 pounders is most unquestionably a good one; and probably the Essex may be rendered more efficient in a contest with an equal sailer— tho she will seldom meet with her equal, in that respect: I therefore consent to your making the proposed change.
P. Hamilton
From Vol. 9—Officers Ships of War, page 497
Note that Hamilton is approving only a modification of Porter’s original request.
* See the March, 1955 Proceedings, which carries a cover portrait of Gamble and a “Page from the Old Navy” devoted to him.