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
In June, 1780, Lewis was again in trouble and was writing to
Congress. He conceived that the addition of members of Congress
to the Board of Admiralty was principally intended to lay such
information before Congress from time to time as the Board desired
to give, to explain its reports, and in the absence, or during
the sickness, of a commissioner to make a quorum. He said that,
notwithstanding the attention which Madison and Ellery had been
disposed to give, their necessary attendance on Congress did not
admit of their being daily and constantly present at the sessions of
the Board; that Ellery had been superseded in Congress; and that at
present there was no Board for lack of a quorum.[237] Congress once
more came to the rescue of Lewis and his Board by appointing Ellery
and Thomas Woodford as commissioners.[238] Ellery at once accepted,
but Woodford for some reason declined the appointment. Congress
never obtained a third commissioner. In the fall of 1780 Daniel
Huntington of Connecticut and Whitmill Hill of North Carolina were
the Congressional members of the Board. On their being supplanted in
November, 1780, by new delegates to Congress from their respective
states, it took the urgent solicitation of Lewis to get Congress to
fill the vacancies.[239] When the Board was discontinued in July,
1781, it had but one Congressional member, Daniel of St. Thomas
Jenifer of Maryland.
To all intents and purposes Lewis and Ellery were the Board of
Admiralty; and in many respects they were well qualified for their
positions. Both were able men, though not brilliant. Both had
passed the meridian of life; Lewis was in his sixty-seventh year,
and Ellery in his fifty-second. Both had taken prominent parts in
the Revolutionary counsels in their respective states; both had been
members of the Continental Congress and of the Marine Committee. Both
were among the immortal Signers of the Declaration of Independence.
Lewis had amassed a fortune as an importing merchant in New York, and
had served in the French and Indian war. Ellery had been a merchant,
and later a lawyer in Newport, Rhode Island. Both men were interested
in naval affairs, and had rendered good service on the Marine
Committee. Lewis’s work on the Board of Admiralty exceeded that of
Ellery.
From the first the Board of Admiralty was more dependent on Congress
than the Marine Committee had been. Congress, always jealous of
its prerogatives, naturally permitted a freer exercise of power to
a committee of its own members, than to a mixed board, whose work
was almost entirely that of commissioners selected outside the
membership of Congress. To the Board’s dependence on Congress for its
organization was added that for means to carry out its naval program.
The frequency with which it went to Congress asking for quorums and
money indicates its helplessness and weakness.
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