Boston, July 4,1861.
My Dear Mr. Eliot, — I
have yours of 2d, and note the doubts of Mr. Welles as to the safety of
intrusting commissions to our merchant sailors. This is natural at first sight,
but a little reflection must convince him that it is entirely unfounded.
During our two wars
with England, when most of our merchant ships were of 200 to 400 tons and none
above 700, our best commodores and captains came from the merchant service, and
showed no inaptitude for carrying frigates into action. Look over Cooper's “Naval
History” and see who won the laurels then!
If history were
wanting as a guide, we should on general principles come to the same confidence
in the skill and gallantry of our merchant sailors. I would make no invidious
comparisons with our navy; but the crisis is a great one, and the navy can well
afford to face the truth. It has glorious men and glorious memories, but they
are so closely interwoven with those of our merchant marine that to lower the
one it is almost inevitable that you lower the other. If I make a comparison,
it is partly in the hope of making suggestions that will tend to raise the navy
to its highest point of efficiency.
Let us for a moment
examine the training of the two services now. Leaving out the Annapolis school
as only just beginning to act upon the very youngest grade of commissioned
officers, the youths intended for the navy have been selected at a very early
age, with generally very insufficient education, from those families who have
political influence, and from those young men who have a prejudice against
rough sailor life. Under our system of promotion by seniority these young men
live an easy life in the midshipman's mess, the wardroom, or on shore, with
little responsibility and little actual work until, at the age of from forty to
sixty, they get command of a vessel; they feel that they are in the public
service for life, and that the ones that take the best care of their lives and
healths are the most sure of the high honors of their profession! Considering
their want of early training, of active experience, and of stimulus, it is only
surprising that they are on the whole so fine a body of men.
Compare this
training with that of our merchant officers. Taken from a class of young men,
with somewhat fewer advantages and education, but all having access to our
public schools, they are sent to sea to fight their own way up. Those who are
capable soon emerge from the mass of common sailors (most of them common
sailors for life), and are tried as mates, etc. They are chosen for their
daring, their vigilance, their faculty for commanding; and those who prove to
have these qualities soon get into command. In nine cases out of ten, the young
American-born sailor who is fit for it gets command of a vessel by the time he
is twenty-five years old, an age when our naval officers have, as a rule, had
but little experience in navigating vessels, and but little responsibility put
upon them.
Instead of the
little vessels which our heroes of the old wars commanded, you will find these
same merchant captains in command of vessels ranging from 700 tons (a small
ship now), up to 1500 and 2000 tons, some as large as our seventy-fours, many
as large as our first-class frigates! It is idle to talk of such men not being
able to manœuvre
sloops-of-war or frigates, either in action or in any circumstances where
seamanship and daring are needed.
So much for a
comparison of the training of the two services; now for one or two suggestions
for raising the navy. First, let us go on with the naval school and
carry its scientific requirements and rigid discipline as high as West Point.
To go further back still; I would have the candidates for the school
recommended, not by members of Congress, but by the boards of education of the
different States, and taken from those who have proved themselves the best
scholars in our public, schools, — at least a majority of them; leaving the
minority to come from those more favored by fortune who use the private
schools.
Once in service, I
would have our navy actively employed in surveying foreign seas and making
charts, as the English navy is doing to a considerable extent. Then let the
President have some discretion to promote those who by gallantry or science
distinguish themselves. Finally, a more liberal retiring list, and if possible
some higher honors in the way of titles as a stimulus to our officers.
Perhaps there is
not time for the reform of the service, but it is the time for beginning the
organization of our volunteer navy. Do you note that the only privateer that we
know has been taken has been by sailing brig Perry, though another is reported
by the Niagara? I could say almost or quite as much in favor of half clipper
ships, in comparison with the ordinary sloop-of-war, as I have said of our
merchant sailors. Until we become converted to European ideas upon standing
armies and navies, we cannot think of giving up our land or sea militia, and,
if we give up privateering, we must have a substitute with all its strength and
more.
Yours truly,
J. M. Forbes.
_______________
* Chairman of the
Naval Committee of the House of Representatives.— Ed.
SOURCE: Sarah
Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes,
Volume 1, p. 221-4
