Story Panel for "Into the Lion's Den"

Design and Production, Inc., a leading builder of large, complex museum exhibits, has been contracted to build “Into the Lion’s Den,” a new Cold War Gallery exhibit at the U.S. Navy Museum. Scheduled for completion by June 2012 as commemoration of the 50^th anniversary of the war in Vietnam begins, “Into the Lion’s Den” describes the history of two events: Operation Sea Dragon, the shelling of coastal targets in North Vietnam by Navy and allied warships, and “Lion’s Den” the August 1972 night bombardment of Haiphong harbor area targets by a four ship Navy flotilla. Large caliber projectiles, photographs, and ships’ artifacts highlighting coastal engagements will provide an overview for museum visitors, who will then enter the reconstructed armored bridge area of USS Newport News (CA 148), a heavy cruiser with three triple 8-inch gun turrets. Recorded sound, simulated gun flashes, and a reverberating deck structure complete with helmsman, phone talkers, and an officer in battledress will be viewed by the visitor who sits in the captain’s chair while listening to actual recorded communications and gunfire from the main battery, experiencing a re-enactment of the engagement described below.

Under the operational command of Commander, Destroyer Squadron 25, heavy cruiser USS Newport News (CA 148), along with guided missile light cruiser Providence (CLG 6) and destroyers Robison (DDG 12) and Rowan (DD 782), was ordered to shell ammo dumps and air defense sites on the coast of North Vietnam near the major port of Haiphong. Less than an hour before midnight on 27 August 1972 the four warships moved within three miles of shore and opened up with their 8-inch, 6-inch, and 5-inch guns. Enemy shore batteries returned fire; some of the 300 shells they fired fell dangerously close to the American ships but failed to score any hits.

USS NEWPORT NEWS (CA 148) fires a salvo off the coast of Vietnam in June 1972. USN 1141898

As the U.S. task group completed its mission and retired to the east, a trio of North Vietnamese P-6 torpedo boats suddenly emerged from nearby islands to ambush the Americans. The U.S. ships immediately opened fire against this new threat. Vice Admiral James L. Holloway III, the Seventh Fleet commander who was on board Newport News that night to observe the operation, then radioed for support from aircraft carrier-based A-7 Corsair II jets using his personal call sign, “Blackbeard.” USS Midway (CVA-41) based VA-93 attack aircraft soon arrived overhead, lit up the sea with flares, and along with gunfire from the surface ships, sank all three of the enemy fast craft in this dramatic nighttime battle.

“Into the Lion’s Den” will be the third exhibit constructed for the Navy Museum’s Cold War Gallery. It follows the “Covert Submarine Operations” exhibit completed in June 2011, and the Central Gallery and Ready Room Theater, completed in 2010. Remodeling of Building 70, the Navy’s original Experimental Model Basin, to house the gallery was completed in 2004, and the design for the many planned exhibits describing the Navy’s 1945 – 1991 Cold War operations was finished in 2010. Completed design and constructed exhibits can be previewed at www.usnavymuseum.org. Building 70 is co-located with the display ship USS Barry and the main Navy Museum building 76 along the Anacostia River at the historic Washington Navy Yard. Please contact the Naval Historical Foundation for information on visiting the Cold War Gallery.

Below, you can watch a short video appeal from our President, VADM Robert F. Dunn, USN (Ret). VADM Dunn explains the battle, as well as plans for the exhibit. The video also features audio recorded during the battle, including the concussion of naval gunfire.

Ezra Pray Journal

In September 1861, with the American Civil War five months old and showing signs of becoming a protracted conflict, Dr. Ezra Pray, practicing medicine in New England, applied for and was granted a naval surgeon’s appointment.  Pray had been born on 13 March 1832 in Rochester, NH, son of farmer Ezra H. Pray and mother Hannah Tebbetts. At 29, Dr. Pray was described in his enrollment record as 5 feet, 10 inches tall, light complexion, light blue eyes and brown hair.

With his appointment effective 21 October 1861, Pray was designated an “acting assistant surgeon” and ordered to report to the U.S. Bark Fernandina in New York City, where he arrived a week before that ship was commissioned on 16 November 1861. This wooden sailing vessel had started commercial life as the Florida, built in New Jersey in 1858, with an overall length 115 feet, beam 29 feet, draft 10 feet, and displacement of 297 tons. Purchased by the Navy on 29 July 1861 for $14,000 and renamed Fernandina (a town in Florida), she was refitted for naval service, sailed with a complement of 86 men, and was armed with six 32-pounder muzzle loading cannon. She was commanded by Acting Volunteer Lieutenant George W. Browne, who was coming to this assignment with limited previous naval experience in the young war.

Pray’s 154-page journal begins with his application for appointment in September and his service in Fernandina from November through 18 April 1862; however, he actually began to write his account in late January through early February 1862, using the ship’s official logbook to remind himself of the key events of his first few months on board.  Thus the journal begins retrospectively until going “live” in February.

Sailing from New York City on 27 November 1861 for duty with the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, Pray and his ship arrived on station off Wilmington, NC on 14 December (after stopping off in Hampton Roads, Virginia briefly to receive orders from the squadron commodore). Pray described the experience of going to sea for the first time from his landlubber’s perspective, including observations about the sea, the ship, and his sea-sickness.  (See attached maps of Hampton Roads, VA and Wilmington, NC).

The first few months revealed the monotony of blockade duty, punctuated with occasional threats not so much from rebel forces but more from the rough winter weather at sea and the ever-present danger of running aground on the lee-shore and shoals of the “Graveyard of the Atlantic” coast. While Pray was a conscientious doctor who looked after his shipmates with compassion and professionalism, he was clearly hoping for the excitement of combat and the opportunity to share in prize money for capturing blockade runners.  Christmas day, 1861, brought Fernandina’s first success in this area, as she took blockade runner William H. Northrop as a prize with a cargo of drugs and coffee.

Within the first few weeks of his five month service in the bark, Pray began to clash with his commanding officer, Lieutenant Browne.  As he became more familiar with Navy life, Pray came to the conclusion that Browne was a martinet, incompetent to command, and incapable of keeping his crew safe and motivated to accomplish their wartime mission.

Matters reached a crisis when, in the late hours of 4 April 1862, Pray was awakened by a crewmember with a frantic “Doctor, get up! Captain has killed a man!” Responding to an altercation on deck, he found the captain and a crewmember slightly injured, and witnessed Browne shooting drunken sailor John Hillman in the abdomen while Hillman was being restrained by another sailor. Certain that his crew has mutinied, Browne’s actions as reported by Pray, even as Pray tried to save Hillman’s life, revealed the rapidly deteriorating discipline and respect for authority so necessary for maintaining order at sea. Dispatched first to Hampton Roads, and then to Baltimore, Maryland (because the hospital ship in Hampton Roads was filled to capacity with the sailors wounded in the previous month’s epic battles between Confederate ironclad CSS Virginia and USS Monitor and Union navy blockading ships), Fernandina’s arrival on 16 April preceded Hillman’s death by one day, and the Navy Court of Inquiry “to inquire into the circumstances of a Mutinous riot and affray…” by 5 days.

Entry 4 April 1862: "Dr. get up - Capt. has killed a man”

That court adjourned on 2 May 1862, finding that “There was not at the time of the shooting of John Hillman, nor had there been, anything which can properly be called a mutiny on board the ship, nor did the officers who witnessed what occurred on deck, regard the ship as in a state of mutiny, except the captain, who seems so far to have lost his self-possession as to magnify the noise and violence of three drunken men into a mutiny, and even to suspect, without reason, that some of his officers were in collusion with this imaginary mutiny.  It was this entire misapprehension by the captain of the nature of the disturbance, which alone extenuates the gravity of his fault in shooting John Hillman, which was wholly unjustified by any real existing danger to himself, or to the ship.”

Acting Lieutenant Browne was disrated to Acting Master on 14 May and reassigned ashore. He subsequently was assigned in June 1862 to command the brig Bohio.  By March 1864 he was on sick leave and his appointment was revoked the following month.

Having filled up all available pages, Pray concluded his journal by announcing his intention of sending it home for the benefit of friends and family.  Reassigned in June 1862 to the US steamer Cambridge, Dr. Pray continued his medical service in that and several other Union warships until his honorable discharge on 1 March 1866.

Pray married Martha J. Hanson of Somersworth, NH on 16 Aug 1865 and they had two sons.  Pray, having returned at some point to farming, received a pension for his military service, as did his widow some years later. Fracturing his femur in a fall on ice, Pray died 4 Apr 1918, age 86, at Rochester, NH.

NHF Executive Director Captain Charles T. Creekman, USN (Ret.), at right, presents the journal to Jan Herman, Historian of the Navy Medical Department, on 15 Feb 2012

At some point the journal (which nowhere mentions its creator, Ezra Pray, by name) passed out of the custody of the Pray family.  A later owner of the journal taped a handwritten note to the inner cover, reporting: “A hand written diary of Civil War—found among Sid’s things. A Navy Dr. wrote it. Valuable, keep. A neighbor of Sid’s burned the rest of set.” No other writings of Dr. Pray have yet come to light.

Apprised of this unique naval history artifact coming available on the market during 2011, the first year of the Civil War Sesquicentennial, the nonprofit Naval Historical Foundation (NHF), itself celebrating 85 years of “preservation, education and commemoration of naval history,” determined to acquire the journal to ensure it would remain accessible to historians and the American public.  With the generous support of Board member and former Secretary of the Navy Ambassador J. William Middendorf II, former NHF vice president Vice Admiral George W. Emery, USN (Ret.) and the Foundation for the History of Navy Medicine, the NHF purchased the journal for $4,500.00 (NHF collection accession number 2011-004).  The narrative was scanned and transcribed, with the original donated to the collection of the U.S. Navy Medical Department Office of the Historian in Washington, DC.  A copy has been donated to the Naval History and Heritage Command’s Histories and Archives Division, Washington Navy Yard, DC.

A note about the transcription; Pray’s original grammar, punctuation, capitalization and spelling have been retained in nearly every instance. Several illegible words are indicated with underlined blanks in the narrative. Pray’s asides are indicated with his own (  ). Explanatory asides inserted by NHF are indicated by [   ].

Transcript of Journal of Acting Assistant Surgeon Ezra Pray

References: (which contributed to the background section and to the transcription of Pray’s narrative)

Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of Union and Confederate Armies. Plate CXXXII (Approaches to Wilmington, NC); plate CXXXIX (Entrances to Cape Fear River, NC). Washington: GPO, 1891-1895.

Barnes, Elinor and James A., eds. Naval Surgeon: Blockading the South, 1862-1866. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1963. [the diary of Dr. Samuel P. Boyer, who followed Dr. Pray as surgeon in Fernandina from 6 July 1862-19 February 1864—but never mentions either Pray or the events of April 1862!]

Browne, George W. file, ZB files, Navy Department Library, Washington Navy Yard, DC.

Browning, Robert M. From Cape Charles to Cape Fear: The North Atlantic Blockading Squadron during the Civil War. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1993.

Fernandina, USS file, ZC files, Navy Department Library, Washington Navy Yard, DC.

Fernandina entry, Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. Naval History and Heritage Command website www.history.navy.mil, 2012.

Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion (OR Navy), Series 1, Volumes 6, 7, 8. Operations of the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron from: October 29, 1861, to March 8, 1862 (vol. 6); March 8 to September 4, 1862 (vol. 7); and September 5, 1862, to May 4, 1863 (vol. 8). Washington: GPO, 1897, 1898, 1899.

Pray, Ezra file, ZB files, Navy Department Library, Washington Navy Yard, DC.

Records of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Navy). Court of Inquiry 21 April 1862, Box 89, file no. 3111. Record Group 125, National Archives Building, Washington, DC.

Register of the Commissioned, Warrant, and Volunteer Officers of the Navy of the United States, including Officers of the Marine Corps and Others, to January 1 1863. Washington: GPO, 1863. Page 163, Browne; page149, Pray.

Register of Volunteer (acting) officers, Navy 1861-ca.1880; Personnel Records 1803-1897; Records Collection of Office of Naval Records and Library, Volumes 1 and 2, Record Group 45, National Archives Building, Washington, DC.

Veteran’s Certificate 39424 and Widow’s Certificate 878896; Acting Assistant Surgeon Ezra Pray; Case Files of Approved Pension Applications of Veterans Who Served in the Army and Navy Mainly in the Civil War and the War with Spain (“Civil War and Later Survivors’Certificates”), 1861-1934; Civil War and Later Pension Files; Records of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Record Group 15, National Archives Building, Washington, DC.

Operation Sail, Inc., the national non-profit organization that produces tall ship events commemorating patriotic American milestones, announced its sponsorship of an essay contest and an art contest for high school students in association with the USS Constitution Museum, the National Maritime Historical Society, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard. The prize, awarded in each of six ports, will be a ride on the Coast Guard tall ship Eagle. OpSail has partnered with the Navy, Coast Guard, and navies around the world to commemorate the bicentennial of the writing of The Star-Spangled Banner and the War of 1812. Some of the world’s largest sailing ships will sail into six major east coast ports from April through July, 2012. Tall ships and navy warships will form up in parades of sail to begin week-long festivities this spring and summer in six cities: New Orleans LA, New York NY, Norfolk VA, Baltimore MD, Boston MA and New London CT.

Essay contest entrants will write a 1,000-word essay on one of three topics:

• THE ROLE OF USS CONSTITUTION AND THE U.S. NAVY IN THE WAR OF 1812
• WHAT THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER MEANS TO ME
• THE ROLE OF THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE IN THE WAR OF 1812

Essays must be submitted as a Microsoft Word attachment in 12 point, Times New Roman font, double spaced, with one-inch margins. The entrant’s name, email and port of interest must appear on the top right-hand corner of the front page. Essay entries should be emailed to opsail2012-essay@opsail.org.

Art contest entrants must submit a copy of their original watercolor, oil, or pencil drawing/painting, no greater than 18 inches x 18 inches depicting one of three topics:

• WHAT THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER MEANS TO ME
• A MARITIME SCENE FROM THE WAR OF 1812
• A REVENUE CUTTER IN ACTION DURING THE WAR OF 1812

Copies of original artwork must be submitted in JPG format under 6 mb in file size. The entrant’s name, email and port of interest must appear in the body of the email. Art entries should be emailed to opsail2012-art@opsail.org. Winners must agree to submit original artwork for display.

Contestants must follow specific deadline and submission requirements. The contests are open to students enrolled in public, parochial or private high schools and who will be at least 12 years old by date of the event for which their work is submitted. The prize is passage on a tall ship for a day during OpSail 2012.

One prize will be awarded in each OpSail event city: New Orleans LA, New York NY, Norfolk VA, Baltimore MD, Boston MA, and New London CT. Entrants must name the one port for which their work is competing (see table below) and meet the deadline for that port city. Deadlines for essays and artwork:

Essays will be judged by a panel of experts led by William H. White, historian and author, and members of the National Maritime Historical Society. Art will be judged by a panel of experts from the USS Constitution Museum. One winner (and one parent/guardian) will be invited to ride the U.S. Coast Guard barque Eagle or a comparable tall ship as the vessel participates in an OpSail Parade of Sail, weather permitting. Winners must arrange for their own transportation to the city where the tall ship sails. Winners may be asked to video record their essays for use by OpSail and must agree to media interviews. Winners agree that their essay or art work may be used for promotional purposes. Submissions become the property of Operation Sail, Inc. for use in print or other media as Operation Sail in its sole judgment determines.

For student/teacher questions about rules, contact:contest@opsail.org.

For more information about OpSail, please visit their website.

Then-LCDR Naughton was shot down in May 1967 flying an A-4C Skyhawk from the deck of USS Enterprise, with the Stingers of VA-1113. He was released in March 1973. He later served as commanding officer VA-83, VA-174 and NAS Dallas. His awards include Silver Star, Legion of Merit (2), Distinguished Flying Cross (2), Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He and his wife Peggy now reside in Texas.

The model of the “Zoo” prison camp features labels describing the various areas of the camp, and is currently on display in the Cold War Gallery, at the Washington Navy Yard. The model was built by Midshipman Ronald Malec, United States Naval Academy Class of 1974, and presented to Commander Jack Fellowes in May 1974. Fellowes (who passed away in 2010) had a personal connection to the Cold War Gallery. He sponsored a model of the A-6E Intruder that he was shot down in over Vietnam, along with Bombardier-Navigator LTJG George Coker. The aircraft model is now on display in the Cold War Gallery. An image of the model can be seen on our Cold War Gallery website, in the “Fly Navy” section under “Aircraft Models,” with additional views available on our Flickr site.  A home made shoulder board fashioned by Coker during their imprisonment is also on display in the Gallery.

A close-up photo of the model of the “Zoo” can be seen below. We’ll have a follow-up story later this month on the model itself.

Port bow view of the Battleship North Carolina with dress ship flags flying. Photo courtesy of the Battleship North Carolina.

The age of the battleship has passed into history, but along the coasts of the United States are reminders of this dramatic era in naval history. Nestled in Wilmington, NC, is the battleship ex-USS North Carolina (BB 55), moored on the Cape Fear River. Commissioned in 1941, she was awarded 15 battle stars during World War II, and was decommissioned in 1947. She was transferred to the state of North Carolina, towed to her present location on the Cape Fear River, and opened as a museum ship in October 1961, with a dedication following in April 1962. In 1986, the battleship was declared a National Historic Landmark.

North Carolina‘s visual appearance is unique amongst the remaining battleships. She seems to rise up out of the landscape of the trees and tall grass surrounding her on the Cape Fear River. Her distinctive camouflage paint scheme often surprises those who think of warships as monotone grey behemoths. Behind her steel bulkheads looms another surprise: fully functioning radio equipment. Through a partnership with the Azalea Coast Amateur Radio Club (ACARC), the ship’s original transmitters, cabling, and antennas are used to transmit ham radio signals, under the call sign NI4BK. The equipment will be in operation for the North Carolina QSO Party, scheduled for 26 February 2012, from noon to 10PM. Anyone who hopes to make contact will need a general coverage short wave receiver, with both CW and SSB (Single Sideband) capabilities in the 7 and 14 MHz frequency ranges.

Restoring this World War II era communication equipment was a labor of love, and required close collaboration between the ship’s staff, volunteers, and ACARC. In 2000, the club (which had been operating their own equipment set up for special events in the Navigator’s Sea Cabin on the Bridge Platform since the late 1990′s) was asked to move to a new location on the ship. ACARC member Carl Filipiak asked Museum Services Director Kim Robinson Sincox about restoring Radio 2 and having the club operate there. It was decided that an attempt would be made to restore the old World War II radio equipment to working condition. Volunteers from the club had previously restored the ship’s 1MC system allowing for announcements and music, as well as old style rotary telephones allowing communication between portions of the ship.

Restoring World War II Radio Transmitters

TBM-4 transmitter

Carl Filipiak and Jack Jacobs from ACARC were involved in the early restoration efforts, and were joined over the years by others including Allan Pellnat, Norm Clemmons, and Bill Usher. The first step in the restoration project was to splice into existing wiring to see if the ship’s antennas could be reactivated. Maintenance Supervisor Terry Kuhn was able to splice into the battleship’s 60 year old coaxial wiring. After some cleaning and re-patching of cords, the club’s modern radio equipment was able to operate successfully through the World War II era wiring and antennas. With the success of this first stage of the restoration, the next step was to take a look at the original transmitter equipment. The TBM-4 transmitter was chosen as the first project. This large piece of equipment sits in two six-foot bays. Both the TBM-4 and TBK-7 were primarily used for “continuous wave” (C.W.) transmission – Morse Code. The TBM-4 is also equipped with a separate modulator unit for ”amplitude modulated” (AM) voice or “modulated continuous wave” (M. C.W.) transmissions. The transmitter and accompanying equipment were dirty, damaged, and inoperative, but all of the major components were still in place. The repair crew set to work in an attempt to bring it back to life.

The first step was to test all of the wiring insulation for high voltage breakdowns. Next, switches had to be cleaned, and all plug-in components such as high power resistors and fuses were also cleaned and properly re-seated. All of the connections under screwed or bolted terminals were inspected to make sure they were secure. Motor-generator bearings were lubricated, and their brushes and armatures were inspected. After a series of fits and starts lasting more than a year, they finally had the transmitter functioning in November 2001. One of the first radio operators the team connected with in early 2002 was Richard “Mac” McCullough, callsign W1SRR. McCulloch was a North Carolina plank owner, and served as a radioman in Radio 2 throughout the entire period of her commissioning. He remained in contact with NI4BK until he passed away two years ago.

TBM-4 generator

Restoration work has continued almost continuously. The TBK-7 transmitter was brought online in 2009. Yet despite their many successes, the volunteers leading the restoration work always have a never-ending series of projects awaiting them. Fortunately, many of the internal components of the radio equipment are still in common use in modern high voltage, high power applications. Other than some minor corrosion problems in switches and controls, the biggest problems have been with the motor-generator sets which provide the high DC voltages that the gear requires. After being dormant for more than 60 years, the motors tend to start up and run fine for a short time, but then develop various problems requiring that they be dismounted and sent out to a motor repair shop. At present, the high voltage motor-generator sets for both the TBM-4 and TBK-7 are out of commission, awaiting removal to the repair shop. This leaves the operators with only the TDE transmitter (a slightly later vintage, installed on board BB 55 in 1944) with a lower power capability.

Callsign: NI4BK

Radio operators communicate with one another through the use of callsigns. The amateur radio callsign NI4BK is a special vanity callsign acquired from the Federal Communications Commission, and is based on the original BB 55 Navy callsign NIBK. When the transmitters on board the battleship are operating, amateur radio operators within range who hear the callsign NI4BK quickly realize that they’ve made a special connection. Whenever the ACARC volunteers put the ship on the air, they quickly acquire a “Pileup” of stations calling them. When amateur radio operators perform a successful 2-way contact, it is customory to exchange a “QSL” postcard. QSL is a radio code meaning “I confirm receipt of your transmission.” Battleship North Carolina‘s QSL card bears a photo of BB 55 underway.

Listen to TBM-4 Test Sequence Recording

Transmitting at Battleship Events

Battleship North Carolina runs tours and events throughout the year, and the Azalea Coast Amateur Radio Club is involved in several, including Hidden Battleship Tours, Museum Ships Weekend, and the North Carolina QSO Party. They remember Pearl Harbor by operating radio equipment from midnight GMT of December 6th through late afternoon of December 7th. They also host a guest HAM operator program.

The QSO Party is an annual ham radio contest that occurs over one weekend each year in each of the 50 states. QSO is a code that means “can you communicate with?” The object of the contest is for ham operators around the world to contact as many of the counties within that state as possible. Each county contacted earns points, and contact with certain special event stations within a county earns additional bonus points. The North Carolina QSO party in late February 2012 includes the 100 counties in North Carolina, plus four Bonus Point special event stations, of which BB 55 is one. Operations from the ship typically run from early Saturday morning until late Sunday afternoon, using voice transmission from modern solid state equipment in the Radio Central area connected via original cabling to one or more of the ship’s original antennas. They concurrently operate the original equipment in Radio 2 (Third Deck, not on the public tour route) using C.W. (Morse Code) transmission. Club members stand by in the Radio Central area to explain to tourists what is happening. The radio operators typically log several hundred two way contacts throughout the US and Canada – as well as many other foreign countries – over the course of the QSO Party weekend.

In mid-summer the radio operators participate in Museum Ships Weekend. This involves 70 or more museum ships throughout the world, operating with original and modern equipment. Warships such as North Carolina are involved, but other civilian museums ships such as a Great Lakes ore carrier and lightships take part. The ships try to contact each other as well as other ham stations throughout the world.

To learn more about the Battleship North Carolina, please visit their website. And if you are on the air, keep a listen for NI4BK!

Radio 2 room, showing transmitters and other equipment

The antenna on the stack at the right side of the picture is fed by the cable seen dangling down to a co-axial duct termination that feeds directly down to the third deck Radio 2 room

Jack Jacobs (sitting) tunes up the TBM-4 while Allan Pellnat (standing) listens to the signal on an RBC WWII era receiver.

Reviewed by Capt. Roger F. Jones, USN (Ret.)

From the cover, one might be forgiven for thinking that Little’s book could be an “ode to piracy,” but after reading a few pages, it is clear that the author has something very different in mind.  He has effectively created a “who’s who” among those who were the most successful in the “golden age” of pirates, but he also shows that they were nothing like the romantic or chivalrous characters in such Hollywood epics as “Captain Blood” or the comedic types in “Pirates of the Caribbean.”  Little sets out to paint a picture of those buccaneers who were at the top of the pyramid of their kind during the three centuries he covers, primarily using plunder and reputation as a yardstick – but he also shows that they were each incredibly avaricious, treacherous, brutal, and sadistic.  “Walking the plank” might well have been one of their more humane forms of execution.

The author describes the strategy and tactics used by pirates to capture, ransack, and loot towns and vessels, although sometimes they were willing to settle for the payment of tribute or ransom.  Often, the sailors of captured ships were compelled to join the pirate band or be killed.  During this period of history, it was possible for a successful pirate captain to become the ruler of a small region, or even an admiral of a nation’s fleet.  However, when the age of sail was overtaken by the age of steam, states and principalities could defend themselves far more effectively, and piracy began to fade as an occupation.  Piracy is hardly dead, however; as the author notes, Somalian pirates operate today in the waters off northeastern Africa (as do buccaneers in the Straits of Malacca).

Little has assembled a large and impressive body of references on piratical activities in the historical era covered in this book, and he analyzes their reliability.  A large number of excellent, detailed historical maps and drawings are included, many in full color.  He begins with the most successful of the Barbary corsairs, Kheir-ed-Din Barbarossa (1470s-1546), who conquered Algiers and “became the government who authorized the pirate.”  Next is Grace O’Malley (1530s-1603), who terrorized the coasts of Ireland, in the Celtic tradition of female warriors.  Francis Drake, Henry Morgan, Blackbeard, Jean LaFitte and others – a veritable “Who’s Who” – of the Spanish Main’s buccaneers are described, as well as famous pirates of the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea.  Tactics and weapons are described in detail – in this, Little is able to make good use of his expertise as a fencer and a former Navy SEAL.

Overall, I found this to be an interesting and very readable book.  His writing skills and command of language are top-notch.  Little clearly knows his subject well and makes a compelling case for his choice of who were the most successful pirates of the past and what made them so.

Captain Jones served 3 years on active duty and 30 in the active reserve as a cryptologist. He also served many years as a paper reviewer in the American Chemical Society and the Society of Plastics Engineers and contributes reviews to Amazon.com.

This conference will examine the relationship between Great Britain and the Sea.  It is increasingly said that Britain is in danger of losing its self-identity as a maritime nation at the point when the sea becomes the focus for a new era of economic exploitation, sustainable transportation and inter-state rivalry.   How did we arrive at this point, where are we now and where should we go from here to ensure the maritime future of the UK?

The conference will be held 4-5 September 2012 in the Roland Levinsky Building at Plymouth University, Plymouth, United Kingdom. The full line up and programme for the conference will be announced after Easter, but it will consist of three elements: 1. Keynote speeches; 2. Plenary discussion; 3. Invited papers.

In line with item 3, short academic papers (20 minutes in duration) are invited to illustrate and explore the following issues/areas of concern.

How did we arrive at this point? - British Culture and the Sea

- How has Britain’s maritime identity been shaped by artists, writers, historians and others?

How did we arrive at this point? – Government Policy Towards the Sea?

- Where have Governments got it right/got it wrong with regard to UK fishing industry/boat and ship building/shipping industry/the Royal Navy/offshore extraction/marine conservation and environment/maritime heritage?

- How have external bodies such as the EU, IMO and others complicated UK

Government policy towards the Sea?

Where are we now? – Threats and Opportunities

- What threats and opportunities face the UK in terms of our economic, environmental and cultural relationships with the sea?

Where should we go from here?

- How is Britain’s Maritime Future to be secured?

- What kind of diplomatic and defence policies do we need to pursue?

Please send a short abstract of your paper (no more than 500 words) and a current CV to conference organiser Dr G.H. Bennett (h1bennett@plymouth.ac.uk) to arrive no later than 15 April, 2012.  Selections will be made on the basis of balance and significance.  Conference fees including catering, but excluding accommodation, will be £75 per person for the two days.

The bicentennial of the War of 1812 is approaching, and after 200 years it’s time to change how we think about that war.  To support that proposal, I’m going to explore what I believe the narrative of that war has been and how we might change it to make it more accurate and more relevant to our own lives and times.

Battle of Lake Erie (Mural in U.S. Naval Academy, NH 43575-KN)

In the past there have been heated—and mostly partisan—arguments about who won.  Then in recent years, it became fashionable to claim that the war was a stalemate, with the further claim that it was simply a horribly stupid waste of life.

Those two latter conclusions are easy to slide into if one simply concentrates on the war’s military actions. For example, of 25 noteworthy naval actions, the U.S. Navy won thirteen and the Royal Navy won twelve.  And along the Canadian borders there were bloody battles won and lost but no major change in the border.  Then on the one hand the U.S. Navy won the critically important fleet actions on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain and American privateers had a significant effect on Britain’s vital sea lines of communication.  But on the other hand, the Royal Navy was able to apply a punishing blockade and a series of successful expeditionary warfare raids against America’s Atlantic coast.

And so the discussions have rolled on. But while it’s true that there was no unconditional surrender by either side, and in a compilation of the results of individual actions there was no clear winner, there were indeed some very important, bottom line gains and losses for each side.  And those gains and losses had long term, geopolitical implications for both the United States and Great Britain—and in fact for the world.  But I’ll come back to that particular point towards the end of my remarks.

One of the biggest problems with the current narrative of the War of 1812 is, I believe, that there has been a tendency to focus on the main events as if they were free standing, rather than parts of a stream of interconnected campaigns, battles, policies, and decisions.  And the corollary of seeing the War of 1812 as a series of free-standing events is that tactical matters inevitably overshadow strategic matters.

There is a very interesting new book out.  Some of you may have read it already. The book’s title is 1812—The Navy’s War, written by George Daughan.  Towards the end of the book there is, for me, a particularly enlightening passage. The passage quotes from a letter from the Duke of Wellington to the British prime minister at the time, Lord Liverpool.  The prime minister had suggested that Wellington go to Canada and take over leadership of the land war along the Canada-U.S. border. At that point Wellington had a deserved reputation as a successful field commander in the Peninsula Campaign against Napoleons’ army.  Wellington’s response focused on an important point.  This is what he said:

“That which appears to me to be wanting in America is not a general, or a general officer and troops, but a naval superiority on the Lakes….The question is, whether we can obtain this naval superiority….If we cannot, I shall do you but little good in America.”[i]

Wellington understood the continuing strategic issues of the War of 1812, in this case the question of whether or not the British could take control of the communication and supply routes represented by the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain.  Wellington wasn’t thinking tactically.  He was confident that he could dominate in the field in most situations with his experienced troops.  He was instead emphasizing the kind of strategic issue that gives context to individual actions and decisions.

And the importance of context is nowhere more important than when trying to establish the true causes of the War of 1812.  The American declaration of war in June 1812 is generally attributed to America’s need to assure “free trade and sailors’ rights.”

In the book Sea Power—A Naval History edited by E.B. Potter and Admiral Chester Nimitz, the circumstances behind that battle cry are spelled out succinctly:

“In the post-Trafalgar period the intensifying commerce warfare between Britain and France left the United States the only major neutral trader on the high seas. American merchant shippers enjoyed unprecedented prosperity both in the general carrying trade and as exporters of American wheat, tobacco, and cotton.  At the same time American merchantmen and even naval vessels, caught between Britain’s Orders in Council and Napoleon’s retaliatory Decrees were subjected to increasing interference that eventually grew intolerable.”[ii]

That’s fine as far as it goes, but in reality there was more—much more—to the story than a simple desire for free trade and sailors’ rights.

As the war approached, there were also strong, emotionally- laden political and diplomatic cross currents that shaped the decisions of President Madison and then-British Prime Minister Spencer Perceval.  And politics, as we know, is often a force unto itself.

President James Madison (by Asher Durand after Gilbert Stuart, KN-10921)

While Madison was the leader in the House of Representatives, he steadfastly resisted the pressure of those in Congress who were inclined towards war with Great Britain.  Those advocating war were mostly from the South, along with expansionists from the then-western states of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio, who were anxious to push the United States’ borders to the west.

Notwithstanding the pressures coming from those inclined towards war with Great Britain, Madison acted on his belief that he could avoid armed conflict by convincing Prime Minister Perceval that a major clash was inevitable, unless Britain dealt with the issues of free trade and impressment.  Madison was further convinced that Great Britain’s preoccupation in Europe with Napoleon would make Britain reluctant to open up a new global warfront.

Madison was wrong on all of the above.  In fact Perceval believed that the regional political divisions within the United States, along with America’s obvious military weakness would force America to accommodate Britain’s maritime policies, no matter how onerous or economically damaging.  In addition Perceval and many around him believed that U.S. complaints could be quieted with a limited application of military pressure.   All of the foregoing created perceptions on the part of the British leadership that were as important as the actual circumstances involved.

There was another important psychological factor among much of the British leadership.  As a result Prime Minister Perceval and his successor, Lord Liverpool, who became Prime Minister in May 1812, had a desire to settle scores with the United States.  In the first chapter of his book, Daughan is blunt:

“The Treaty of Paris…hardly reconciled the king or his people to colonial liberty.  Bitter about their humiliating defeat, the British watched with satisfaction as the thirteen states floundered without a central government….Many in London expected the American experiment in republican government to fail.”[iii]

The Evening Star in London put things in more colorful terms:

“England shall not be driven from the proud pre-eminence, which the blood and treasure of her sons have attained for her among nations, by a piece of red, white, and blue striped bunting flying at the mastheads of a few fir-built frigates manned by a handful of bastards and outlaws.”[iv]

As we know the feelings were mutual, and it’s difficult to overemphasize the importance of sentiments such as those when discussing the reasons for the War.  Yet they usually get little emphasis, if any.

The miscalculations on both sides that contributed to the U.S. declaration of war continued into the armed conflict.  For example the British leadership failed to recognize the importance of the U.S. Navy’s early, morale-boosting, tactical victories in the early single-ship actions.

Those stunning single-ship actions were shrugged off at the Admiralty and Whitehall as embarrassing but basically non-determinants in the war, when they were in fact hugely important in sustaining a fighting spirit in the U.S. Navy.  And of greater importance, those early naval victories sustained the will of the American political leadership and the public to fight on in the war.

The British were not alone in this pattern of miscalculations.  For example the U.S. political leadership constantly misjudged the determination of most Canadians to remain part of the British Empire.  A month into the war, then-former-president Jefferson, famously opined: “[T]he acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching.”[v]

The serious misjudgments were still evident—not surprisingly at this point—during the peace negotiations that began at Ghent in August 1814.  In the early phases of those deliberations, for example Madison doggedly believed that the British were anxious for a negotiated peace.  When in truth Prime Minister Liverpool was convinced that with the pressures of Britain’s blockade and expeditionary warfare raids—particularly the presumably devastating psychological impact of the burning of Washington—the United States would not, could not, sustain the war for much longer.

So we see that the War of 1812 was launched and sustained to a significant degree by one false impression after another and a high degree of emotion on both sides.  It wasn’t until the connected Battles of Lake Champlain and Plattsburg that the direction of the negotiations at Ghent finally changed.  And at that point they changed radically.

With Commodore Macdonough’s victory over a British fleet on Lake Champlain on 11September 1814 and U.S. Brigadier General Alexander Macomb’s  accompanying repulse of British General Prevost at Plattsburgh—along with  the subsequent withdrawal of Prevost’s army to the north—the strategic nature of the War of 1812 was suddenly altered.

Battle of Lake Champlain (Edward Tufnell, Navy Art Collection NH 51480-KN)

The Battle of Lake Champlain became the main tipping point by stopping a British thrust down Lake Champlain and the Hudson Valley and into the commercial heart of America.  Such a campaign, if successful, would in all probability have shattered the United States geographically and ended the nation then and there.  The coincidental repulse of the British attack on Baltimore was the exclamation point on the new strategic equation.

Let’s shift focus now to assess the outcome of the war.  On the positive side for Britain, the period of relative peace that followed the war allowed Britain to benefit economically from her foreign trade and to firmly establish her de facto dominance of the seas.  The latter would prove to be an unchallenged and immeasurable geostrategic benefit to Britain for a century.  The end of the war also helped Britain to focus on the Industrial Revolution’s early stages and to quickly become the world’s largest economy.  These were obviously important and very positive outcomes of the War of 1812 for Great Britain.  It should be noted, however, that notwithstanding those positives, there were many in Britain who felt that their nation had conceded too much at Ghent.

On the positive side for the United States, the dominant position of America in Florida and Louisiana was confirmed and the possibility of a massive buffer Indian nation in the territories that would become Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan was eliminated.  And U.S. foreign trade was once again able to contribute to America’s burgeoning economic might.

In addition and arguably most important of all, the United States gained international stature that did not exist before the war.  The companion to that new stature was the recognition in the United States that a strong, standing military was an essential component of national security, and both the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy emerged from the War of 1812 as more professional military services.

Many—perhaps most—would  agree that at the center of that new American global stature was the U.S. Navy, a force that had established emphatically that it not only would fight against the best, but it also could win decisively at that level. And it could win not only in a tactical context but in a strategic context as well.

Frequently the War of 1812 is referred to as America’s second war of independence, and it was that.  It was also the validation of the implausible vision of John Paul Jones who wrote in 1778:

“Our Marine (Navy) will rise as if by enchantment and become, within the memory of persons now living, the wonder and envy of the world.” [vi]

Representative of the new U.S. Navy that was shaped during the War of 1812 was a group of officers referred to as “Preble’s Boys.”  They were named for Commodore Edward Preble, who noted the youth of his officers when he was in command of a squadron in the Mediterranean during the Barbary Wars.  All his captains were less than 30 years old—some were in their early 20s.  After a few months of action in the Mediterranean, however, “Preble’s Boys” established themselves as exceptional warfighters, officers who were forward-leaning if not downright aggressive in their combat doctrines.

Among the “Preble’s Boy’s” who went on to distinguish themselves in the War of 1812 were William Bainbridge, victor in the action between USS Constitution and HMS Java; Stephen Decatur, who defeated HMS Macedonian while in command of USS United States; Isaac Hull, victor over HMS Guerriere while captain of USS Constitution; Thomas Macdonough, victor at the Battle of Lake Champlain; David Porter, who, as captain of USS Essex captured HMS Alert, the first British ship captured in the War of 1812; and Charles Stewart, who captured HMS Cyane and HMS Levant in a single extended action.

“Preble’s Boys” were part of the new breed of professionals who bridged the gap between the inward-looking and basically defensive attitudes that followed the American Revolution and the global sea power concepts that came to maturity at the beginning of the twentieth century with President Teddy Roosevelt and Admiral A. T. Mahan.  In a book by Allan Westcott titled Mahan on Naval Warfare—Selections from the Writings of Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan, the Introduction includes the following:

“[T]he historian of sea power (Mahan) had much to do with the emergence of the United States in 1898 as a world power, with possessions and new interests in distant seas.  And no one believed more sincerely than he that this would be good for the United States and the rest of the world.”[vii]

It was “Preble’s Boys,” along with those who fought with them and paid a heavy price in blood, who connected ideas of liberty with the steady progress of globalization that continues up to our own times.

In his book On Seas of Glory, former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman wrote at the beginning of his chapter on the War of 1812:

“Before the War of 1812 the young republic did not have an organized naval service in the truest sense.  Gradually, the need to defend the commerce of the fragile new nation against warring European powers, Barbary pashas and pirates created the foundation of the U.S. Navy in fits and starts.”[viii]

At the end of the chapter Lehman’s focus is far reaching:

“The early efforts of Adams, Jones and Barry to establish institutional permanence were now accomplished, complete with a rich store of custom and tradition, borrowed liberally from the British and French navies, but very distinctly American….The new republic now had a formidable instrument to build a global commerce, enforce a Monroe Doctrine, and when the test came, to preserve the Union from rebellion.”[ix]

At the beginning of my remarks, I said there were a lot more than tactical victories and defeats during the War of 1812 and that there were very important gains and losses at the end of the war that had long term implications for both the United States and Great Britain—and in fact for the world.

To that point and in closing, I suggest that what the victories and defeats, mistakes on both sides, and the good and bad luck of the War of 1812 all added up to was a happening that is still playing out.  That happening was the emergence of the United States as a global—eventually preeminent—naval power.

Our security and prosperity, as well as that of much of the world, is to a significant extent based on U.S. naval power, a global force that came forth in a brilliant flash of history between 1812 and 1814.  It was a marriage of democratic political concepts to sea power.  It was a phenomenon that harks back to Themistocles and the triremes of the Athenian empire of the fifth century BC.

The conjunction of American theories of liberty with global sea power in 1814 is, in my opinion, the single most important outcome of the War of 1812.  And it was an enormously important—and mostly positive—outcome that has born heavily on world history.  We ignore that message from history at great risk.

World War I Navy Recruiting Poster by artist Howard Chandler Christy, 1917 NH 81543-KN (Color)

The Photograph Section at the Naval History & Heritage Command is announcing a call for volunteers in and out of the DC Metro area. A list of potential duties can be found below. If interested in any of the volunteer positions, please contact the Photograph Section at NHHC by email at nhhcfacebook@gmail.com.

Work to be done at NHHC

L-File: To inventory and add government photographs into a filing series that is alphabetically broken down. (2 volunteers needed).

Visual-Aid Cards: To inventory and fix any filing problems in the 3” x 5” reference card system in which researchers use to view the replicas of original photographs. These cards save wear and tear on the original photographs. (1 volunteer needed).

Inspection of the U-System: To inventory and fix any filing errors in the donation “wait tank”. Review the images and report to Photograph Section staff when pertinent historic images are found. (2 volunteers needed).

Scanning Photographs for NHHC Website: To scan NH System photographs in high-resolution for eventual presentation on the Naval History and Heritage Command website. Training will involve the art of caption writing. (2 volunteers needed)

Conversion of vinyl records to digital files: These lateral conversions of vinyl records have “voice histories” of Change of Commands and other military events. The conversions will be done using a USB Turntable and will be used for future posting on the Naval History & Heritage Command website. (1 volunteer needed)

Off-site work to be done for NHHC

Use of Photo Shop for NHHC Website: To adapt the scanned images above and produce the thumbnails and regular size jpgs presented on the Naval History and Heritage Command website. (2 volunteers needed).

Reformatting of Web Pages: To adapt the prior NHHC Photograph Section into the new NHHC website format. This work would require experience in html programming. If one has the basic skills, the Photograph Section could train in the process of reformatting the pages. (3 volunteers needed).

National Archives Searches: To travel to the Still Picture and Moving Image Branches at College Park, Maryland, and find pertinent images related to Naval History that could be scanned and brought to the Naval History and Heritage Command (2 volunteers needed)

To read more about the Photograph Section, visit their website.

Reviewed by Col. Curt Marsh, USMC (Ret.)

The author, David Sears who is a former U.S. Navy officer and Vietnam War veteran with service aboard destroyers, has presented a well researched book that chronicles the important contribution of naval aviation to the Korean War effort.  Sears’ research relied heavily on the notes that James Michener wrote in 1951 while imbedded with the Navy carriers to research for the classic novel/movie The Bridges at Toko-Ri. Fortunately he took his research much further in seeking out the actual men behind the characters in the novel to tell the actual story of their exploits and bravery.

The book traces the journey of several men from their youth, through their training to be naval aviators and onto their service in combat launching off aircraft carriers in the cold waters of Sea of Japan to strike targets in North Korea.  By following these individuals the history of naval aviation is illuminated from the close of World War II through combat in Korea.

America’s military was not very well prepared for war in June 1950 when the North Koreans invaded the South.  After a significant demobilization following World War II, the Navy struggled to maintain a quality pipeline of new officers and pilots.  The “Holloway Plan” named for Adm. James L. Holloway Jr., then Chief of Navy Personnel, was instituted along with the NROTC program to provide both active and reserve officers in addition to the Naval Academy.  (Adm. Holloway was also the father of Adm. James L. Holloway III, former CNO and Chairman of the Naval Historical Foundation.)  Most of the pilots in the book were products of “The Holloway” including Jessie Brown the first black Naval Aviator, future astronaut Neil Armstrong, and Joe Akagi whose father was Japanese-American.  Most ended up in Reserve Squadrons that were mobilized for the Korean War flying World War II era Corsairs.

The Korean War witnessed numerous technological changes for naval aviation from the employment of helicopters for search and rescue (SAR) to the introduction of jet aircraft on carriers.  The exploits of these pilots reveal the special difficulties of fighting a war from carriers.  Most missions involved critical airstrikes against Communist supply lines or supporting the Marines as they fought their way out of the Chosin Reservoir.  The book points out how several key individuals instituted significant innovations in SAR helicopter operations that dramatically improved the safety of diver and pilots in the freezing cold waters.  Aircraft improved from the World War II era Corsair to the A4D (A-1) Skyraider, which was the pinnacle of propeller driving attack aircraft, and then to the Grumman F9F Panther jet.  The book also provides the chilling details of several men who became Prisoners of War and how they survived their brutal treatment.

Part of the story is about how James Michener observed the war and the men fighting it while on the carriers Essex and Valley Forge.  The book which was developed into the movie The Bridges at Toko-Ri staring William Holden, Grace Kelly and Mickey Rooney was commended by the CNO Adm. Arleigh Burke “as a meticulously accurate depiction of the naval air war and the best Navy war film ever.”  Then Commander James L. Holloway III also led the Navy “stunt pilots” during the filming of the movie flying the F9F Panther jet.  He also who wrote the Forward to the book noting his two combat tours in Korea and his support for the film.

Overall this is a good read that tells an important story of the contribution of naval airpower in the Korean War.  The life stories and combat service of the individual pilots are presented in a clear manner.  The high quality of the research by the author is evident in the notes and appendixes at the end of the book to include chapter notes, a glossary, post war biographies of those who survived, and a detailed listing of all the ships and squadrons in the carrier air groups along with their respective Commanding Officers.

It is interesting to consider the changes in tactics over time, but what is clear was the dedication of the pilots to accomplish their missions as best they could under the circumstances.  Michener’s fictional Admiral provides the title for the book when he exclaims, “Where does America get such men?”  Indeed.  This is a book worth reading by any student of naval history.

Curt Marsh is a retired Marine Corps officer and Naval Aviator who flew the A-4M Skyhawk.  He is now a contractor supporting the FAA.