The Navy of the American Revolution : $b Its administration, its policy, and its achievementsPaullin, Charles Oscar
History
The Navy of the American Revolution : $b Its administration, its policy, and its achievements
Paullin, Charles Oscar
United States -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783 -- Naval operations; United States. Navy -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783
This action seems more severe than the facts justify. John Adams,
who defended Hopkins, had with difficulty prevented Congress from
cashiering the Commodore. According to Adams’s view, Hopkins was
“pursued and persecuted by that anti-New-England spirit which haunted
Congress in many other of their proceedings, as well as in this
case.”[177] The action of Congress may be interpreted differently.
Hopkins had not met the expectations of Congress or the Marine
Committee. As the head of the fleet, blame naturally fell upon him,
whether he deserved it or not. He had his shortcomings as a naval
officer, and failure magnified them. By placing the blame upon him,
the skirts of Congress, of the Marine Committee, and of the other
naval officers were cleared, and the hopes of a few self-interested
men were brightened.
Commodore Hopkins’s failure to carry out the plans of the Marine
Committee during the fall of 1776, together with the partial
inaction of the fleet under his command, increased his disfavor with
Congress and the Marine Committee. His praiseworthy endeavors to man
and prepare his fleet for sea won for him the enmity of the owners
of privateers at Providence, for his success would mean the taking
of men and materials sorely needed by the privateersmen. Hopkins’s
intemperate language, lack of tact, and naval misfortunes bred a
spirit of discontent, and gave an excuse for insubordination among
his inferior officers. Encouraged by the discontented privateersmen
of Providence, ten of the inferior officers of the “Warren,”
the Commodore’s flagship, signed a petition and certain letters
containing complaints and charges against Hopkins, and sent their
documents to the Marine Committee. They were taken to Philadelphia by
the chief “conspirator,” Captain John Grannis of the marines. These
documents asserted that Hopkins had called the members of the Marine
Committee and of Congress “ignorant fellows-lawyers, clerks-persons
who don’t know how to govern men;” that he was “remarkably addicted
to profane swearing;” that he had “treated prisoners in a most
inhuman and barbarous manner;” that he was a “hindrance to the proper
manning of the fleet;” and that “his conversation is at times so wild
and orders so unsteady that I have sometimes thought he was not in
his right mind.” Besides these accusations, there were a few others
of even less substantial character.[178]
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