Matthew Calbraith Perry: A Typical American Naval OfficerGriffis, William Elliot
History
Matthew Calbraith Perry: A Typical American Naval Officer
Griffis, William Elliot
Perry, Matthew Calbraith, 1794-1858
Meanwhile, on deck, the Commodore co-operated in the “awful activity” of
the American batteries. At daylight, Perry, seeing that the castle was
paying particular attention to the naval battery, ordered Tatnall in the
_Spitfire_ to approach and open upon it, in order to divert the fire
from the land forces. Tatnall asked the Commodore at what point he
should engage. Perry replied, “Where you can do the most execution,
sir.” The brave Tatnall took Perry at his word. With the _Spitfire_ and
the _Vixen_, commanded by Joshua R. Sands, each having two gun-boats in
tow, he steamed up to within eighty yards distance, and began a furious
cannonade upon the fortress holding his position for a half hour. The
fight resembled a certain one, pictured on a Netherlands historical
medal, of a swarm of bees trying to sting a tortoise to death despite
his armor. Here was a division of “mosquito boats” blazing away at the
stone castle within a distance which had enabled the Mexicans to blow
them out of the water had they handled their guns aright. The affair
became not only exciting but ludicrous, when Tatnall and Sands took
still closer quarters within the Punto de Hornos, where the little
vessels were at first almost hidden from view in the clouds of spray
raised by the rain of balls that vexed only the water. Tatnall’s idea
seemed to be to give the surgeons plenty to do. Perry, however, did not
believe in that sort of warfare. When he saw that the castle guns which
had been trained away from the land to the ships were rapidly improving
their range, he recalled the audacious fighters.
Tatnall at first was not inclined to see the signals. The Commodore then
sent a boat’s crew with preemptory orders to return. Amid the cheers of
the men who brought them, Tatnall obeyed, though raging and storming
with chagrin. Most of the men on board his ships were wet, but none had
been hurt. To retreat without bloody decks was not to his taste.
General Scott, a thorough American, had long rid himself of the old
British tradition, that in all wars there must be “a big butcher’s
bill.” This idea was not much modified until after the Crimean war,
which was mostly butchery, and little science,—magnificent, but not
war. The Soudan campaign of 1884 threatened a revival of it. We have
seen how this idea dominated on the British side, in the wished-for
“yard arm engagements” of the navy in 1812, and how, in place of it, the
Americans bent their energies to skill in seamanship and gunnery; or, in
other words, to victory by science and skill.
Perry and Scott were alike in their ideas and tastes, they regarded war
more as the application of military science to secure national ends with
rapidity and economy, than as a scrimmage in which results were measured
by the length of the lists of killed and wounded. Tatnall, a veteran of
the old school, however, seemed still to adhere to the old British
ideal, and was keenly disappointed to find so few hurt on the American
side.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account