Good Morning...Tangible symbol of American Naval Glory

[Okla-homey]

August 19, 1812, USS Constitution Earns Her Nickname:

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/3997/constit229ba.jpg

194 years ago on this day during the War of 1812, the U.S. Navy frigate USS Constitution defeated the British frigate HMS Guerriere in a furious engagement off the coast of Nova Scotia in the North Atlantic. Witnesses claimed that the British shot merely bounced off Constitution's sides, as if the ship were made of iron rather than wood. By the war's end, "Old Ironsides" destroyed or captured seven more British ships. The success of USS Constitution against the supposedly invincible Royal Navy provided a tremendous boost in morale for the young American republic.

USS Constitution was one of six frigates that Congress requested be built in 1794 to help protect American merchant fleets from attacks by Barbary pirates and harassment by British and French forces. She was laid down in Boston, and the bolts fastening her timbers and copper hull sheathing were provided by the industrialist and patriot Paul Revere. Launched on October 21, 1797, USS Constitution was 204 feet long, displaced 2,200 tons, and was rated as a 44-gun frigate (although she often shipped as many as 50 guns).

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4859/constitutionpostersm8tt.jpg
More than a few men joined the Navy inspired by this popular recruiting poster featuring "Old Ironsides" widely used in the 1960's and 70's.

In July 1798 she put to sea with a crew of 450 and cruised the West Indies, protecting U.S. shipping from French privateers. In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson ordered the American warship to the Mediterranean to fight Barbary pirates off the coast of Tripoli. Previously, maritime nations whose ships either transitted or called on ports in the southern Mediterranean, paid bribes to North African pirate lords in order to keep their merchant vessels safe from harm in that part of the world.

President Jefferson rightly decided the US would not abide such Tripolitan extortion and sent the Constitution task force, including a sizable detachment of US Marines, to communicate America's unwillingness to pay "protection" money to the Libyan warlords.

NOTE: It is not known if there were domestic protests by folks carrying signs and shouting "No Blood To Stop Barbary Bribes"

The task force performed commendably during the conflict, and in 1805 a peace treaty with Tripoli was signed on Constitution's quarterdeck.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/7748/ship8a0bu.jpg
Constitution squadron at "the shores of Tripoli" dealing with Arab piracy

When war broke out with Britain in June 1812, Constitution was commanded by Isaac Hull, who served as lieutenant on the ship during the Tripolitan War. Scarcely a month later, on July 16, Constitution encountered a squadron of five British ships off Egg Harbor, New Jersey. Finding herself surrounded and seriously outgunned, Constitution was preparing to escape when suddenly the wind died.

With both sides dead in the water and just out of gunnery range, a legendary slow-speed chase ensued. For 36 hours, Constitution's crew kept her just ahead of the British by towing the frigate with her oar powered longboats and by tossing the ship's anchor ahead of her and then reeling it in. At dawn on July 18, the wind freshened, and Constitution was far enough ahead of her pursuers to raise sail and show them her heels.

One month later, on August 19 1812, Constitution caught the British warship Guerriere alone about 600 miles east of Boston. The Royal Navy vessel bore a French name because she had earlier been taken as a prize of war from the hated French Navy, and ships were not customarily re-christened with new names when they changed ownership. After considerable maneuvering, Constitution delivered her first broadside, and for 20 minutes the American and British vessels blasted away at each other in close and violent action. The British man-of-war was de-masted and rendered a wreck while Constitution escaped with only minimal damage.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/8606/ladyluck8wj.jpg
USS Constitution v. HMS Guerriere, August 19, 1812

The unexpected victory of Old Ironsides against a British frigate helped unite America behind the war effort and made her skipper Commander Isaac Hull a national hero. USS Constitution went on to defeat or capture seven more British ships in the War of 1812 and ran the British blockade of Boston twice.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/1662/h544223xp.th.jpg (http://img386.imageshack.us/my.php?image=h544223xp.jpg)
Commemorative poster published around the centennial of Constitution's commissioning depicting significant actions and events in her logs. Commander Hull is in center. From the National Archives.

After the war, Old Ironsides served as the flagship of the navy's Mediterranean squadron and in 1828 was laid up in Boston. Two years later, the navy considered scrapping Constitution, which had become unseaworthy, leading to an outcry of public support for preserving the famous warship.

The navy refurbished Constitution, and she went on to serve as the flagship of the Mediterranean, Pacific, and Home squadrons. In 1844, the frigate left New York City on a global journey that included visits to numerous international ports as a goodwill agent of the United States.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/3640/graphi14wt.jpg
Painting depicts the moment when Pope Pius IX boarded Constitution off Gaeta, Italy, in August 1849. Because any commissioned warship is considered to be a piece of its nation's territory, this was the first time a pope set foot in America.

In the early 1850s, she served as flagship of the African Squadron and patrolled the West African coast looking for slave traders.

In 1855, USS Constitution was retired from active military service, but the famous vessel continued to serve the United States, first as a training ship and later as a touring national landmark. Since 1934, she has been based at the Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/7229/constitution10226va.jpg
From her berth at the historic Charlestown Navy Yard, Constitution's bow with Boston skyline in the background.

Over the years, Old Ironsides has enjoyed a number of restorations, the most recent of which was completed in 1997, allowing her to sail for the first time in 116 years. Today, USS Constitution is the world's oldest commissioned warship still afloat.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/4323/flyover2ma.jpg
Sailors on board the destroyer USS Ramage (DDG 61) man the rails while escorting USS Constitution, the world's oldest commissioned warship afloat underway in Massachusetts Bay in 1997 as the Navy's Blue Angels Flight Demonstration Squadron fly over in salute.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/4279/stickereagleofsea0uz.jpg

for more info:
Official US Navy "USS Constitution" website (http://www.oldironsides.com)

Have a great weekend everyone. Respectfully submitted by Douglas C. Niedermeyer

http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/785/insane7zo6hp.jpg

[Sooner_Bob]

Cool. Very Cool.

[Fish]

Loved to read of her adventures when I was a kid!

Great post!

[Frozen Sooner]

Minus the snarky political commentary, that read very well.

[SicEmBaylor]

I wanted to go see the USS Constittuion last October, but I got stuck in Boston traffic and got there just a few minutes after they closed. The Naval sentries did allow me past the gate to take pictures though.

[SoonerJack]

Chills man, just plain old chills. Great post.

[Harry Beanbag]

Minus the whining about the snarky political commentary, this thread read very well.

[Frozen Sooner]

Minus the whining about the snarky political commentary, this thread read very well.

Minus the whining about the legitimate comment about someone interjecting their own take on modern politics into a post about history, it did.

[Okla-homey]

Minus the whining about the legitimate comment about someone interjecting their own take on modern politics into a post about history, it did.

Brother Froz,

Without exception, every single armed intervention or conflict this nation has entered in its entire history has ultimately been about the protection and/or encouragement of commerce, free trade and capitalism.

I was merely trying to relate the US's response to those who would interfere in the infant US's access to the sea-lanes, which were then and remain the superhighway of international trade, to contemporary loonies who believe no one should die over oil. Oil, like sea-lanes, is as essential to our economy as oxygen.

If you don't "get" that, that's not my problem, but its an unwavering historical constant.

Heck man, the US Constitution itself was the world's first "economic union" and "free-trade agreement." That's is the ONLY reason those disparate former colonies banded together under a federal system -- it was good for business.

[Frozen Sooner]

Brother Froz,

Without exception, every single armed intervention or conflict this nation has entered in its entire history has ultimately been about the protection and/or encouragement of commerce, free trade and capitalism.

I was merely trying to relate the US's response to those who would interfere in the infant US's access to the sea-lanes, which were then and remain the superhighway of international trade, to contemporary loonies who believe no one should die over oil. Oil, like sea-lanes, is as essential to our economy as oxygen.

If you don't "get" that, that's not my problem, but its an unwavering historical constant.

Heck man, the US Constitution itself was the world's first "economic union" and "free-trade agreement." That's is the ONLY reason those disparate former colonies banded together under a federal system -- it was good for business.

Brother Homey,

As someone who proudly holds a BA in Economics from the University of Oklahoma, I am well aware that every war in our national history has something to do with trade. Without giving it a whole lot of thought, I'd probably expand that statement to include every war in history if we expand the definition of trade far enough.

However, most people who holler about "War for Oil" (and make no mistake, I'm not one of 'em) are generally trying to point out that in their opinion our adventures in Iraq have more to do with safeguarding oil than the administration's stated reasons for invading said country. If you don't "get that," then that's not really my fault. I'm relatively sure that most people at the time of the wars against the Barbary pirates were well aware that we were attempting to protect our shipping interests, and that the administration at the time made that pretty clear.

However, as someone of your historical background should be aware, every single war in our nation's history has had people who protested in some shape or form. There were those who protested our involvements in World Wars I and II. Protest and dissent is a longstanding tradition in this nation.

[StoopTroup]

Ain't Free Speech a bitch. :D

[soonerboomer93]

Yeah, I think i'll start charing people for the priviledge of talking to me

[OklahomaTuba]

Protest and dissent is a longstanding tradition in this nation.

Protest and dissent is one thing. No reasonable person has a problem with that.

Activley rooting for your country to lose a war is another, and thats exactly what the so called "anti war" movement is doing. And what's sad is that its mostly out of hatred for our President.

Great article Homey. Its a great ship and glad I have had a chance to walk on her deck.

[Okla-homey]

There were those who protested our involvements in World Wars I and II. Protest and dissent is a longstanding tradition in this nation.

History hasn't treated those folks kindly nor should it in my view. War should never be entered into lightly and the diplomatic, informational and economic options should normally be exhausted before use of the military option.

However, once the decision is made to deploy American men into harms way in accordance with our laws, prudent and loyal Americans should support the national effort because such unified support is empowering to the soldier, ultimately leads to shorter conflicts and fewer lives lost on both sides.

Indeed, protest and dissent are fundamental American rights and should not be limited or impeded if they remain peaceful and are founded in genuine disdain for war generally. However, in the event such dissent evolves into active support for our nation's enemies and provides them aid and comfort, it should be dealt with harshly as a form of sedition.

Oh yeah, at least one war in the 20th century began over reasons not related to economic ones. WWI began because a Bosnian separatist shot an Austrian archduke in 1914. American involvment however, began in 1917 because of unrestricted German submarine warfare against Atlantic shipping which was threatening US trade.

[Frozen Sooner]

Look to the reasons for the alliances in the first place,

[Okla-homey]

Look to the reasons for the alliances in the first place,

It was mostly about co-sanguinity among the various crowned heads.

[Frozen Sooner]

Right...

And the reason why the crowned heads kept intermarrying was to protect the wealth and power of the monarchies.

[Okla-homey]

Right...

And the reason why the crowned heads kept intermarrying was to protect the wealth and power of the monarchies.

That and the spikey-helmeted cousins didn't want to fight amongst themselves and chose instead to fight the felt hat wearing cousins -- and the French.;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Don't underestimate the natural emnity of the spikey-helmeted against the felt-lovers. :D

Homey, for what it's worth, I wasn't trying to stir up anything with my post. I honestly thought that your very well-written piece would have been better without the political commentary. Admittedly, I don't have your historical background-however, it's always been my feeling that when political preferences get inserted into historical accounts that it detracts from the text.

My apologies for the derailment.

[Okla-homey]

Don't underestimate the natural emnity of the spikey-helmeted against the felt-lovers. :D

Homey, for what it's worth, I wasn't trying to stir up anything with my post. I honestly thought that your very well-written piece would have been better without the political commentary. Admittedly, I don't have your historical background-however, it's always been my feeling that when political preferences get inserted into historical accounts that it detracts from the text.

My apologies for the derailment.

No problem man and I was not offended in any way. But, I honestly fail to understand the problem with observing historical occurences in modern contexts. Frankly, that is one of the reasons the study of history is worthwhile and important. I have found that historical circumstances change, but some things remain constant.

One of those constants is that wars in which the US has engaged were fought primarily to defend our economic viability. Even the Revolution was spawned out of a desire to avoid taxation. During that period, many rural Americans who didn't buy much of anything in the way of printed matter or other taxed goods tended towards much higher levels of loyalism to the crown -- mainly because their pocketbooks were'nt affected by the royal taxes. That's also the reason the leading lights of the patriot movement were New England merchants and manufacturers. They felt those taxes most keenly.

The Civil War (IMHO the defining period of our history) was begun by the Confederate states in order to preserve chattel slavery which was critical to its economic viability. Southerners who lived far from the plantation system in areas where cotton wasn't grown tended towards much higher levels of loyalism to the "old flag." As an aside, that's also the main reason why WV "seceded" from VA -- they didn't grow cotton in WV. The leaders of the secession movement in the old South were more loyal to "King Cotton" and his riches than they were to the Republic founded four-score and ten years earlier.

Modernly and notwithstanding the jihaadist attacks, we have remain engaged in Southwest Asia since Gulf War I because we require the region's petroleum resources for our economic viability. Some Americans believe that's a poor reason for going to war but I think they are just ignorant of the reality or are simply very historically niave. We support Israel because she is our oldest and most steadfast ally in that very important part of the world. We need Arab oil to survive just like we need oxygen to survive and as long as we have a military capable of making sure we have it, American kids are going to die to keep gas at the pumps. I try to remember that fact each time I fill-up and I'm honestly trying to be more conservative in my use as a result.

IOW, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[TUSooner]

Umm.... I really liked the deal about the ship. Sorry I missed it Saturday

[Frozen Sooner]

No problem man and I was not offended in any way. But, I honestly fail to understand the problem with observing historical occurences in modern contexts. Frankly, that is one of the reasons the study of history is worthwhile and important. I have found that historical circumstances change, but some things remain constant.

One of those constants is that wars in which the US has engaged were fought primarily to defend our economic viability. Even the Revolution was spawned out of a desire to avoid taxation. During that period, many rural Americans who didn't buy much of anything in the way of printed matter or other taxed goods tended towards much higher levels of loyalism to the crown -- mainly because their pocketbooks were'nt affected by the royal taxes. That's also the reason the leading lights of the patriot movement were New England merchants and manufacturers. They felt those taxes most keenly.

The Civil War (IMHO the defining period of our history) was begun by the Confederate states in order to preserve chattel slavery which was critical to its economic viability. Southerners who lived far from the plantation system in areas where cotton wasn't grown tended towards much higher levels of loyalism to the "old flag." As an aside, that's also the main reason why WV "seceded" from VA -- they didn't grow cotton in WV. The leaders of the secession movement in the old South were more loyal to "King Cotton" and his riches than they were to the Republic founded four-score and ten years earlier.

Modernly and notwithstanding the jihaadist attacks, we have remain engaged in Southwest Asia since Gulf War I because we require the region's petroleum resources for our economic viability. Some Americans believe that's a poor reason for going to war but I think they are just ignorant of the reality or are simply very historically niave. We support Israel because she is our oldest and most steadfast ally in that very important part of the world. We need Arab oil to survive just like we need oxygen to survive and as long as we have a military capable of making sure we have it, American kids are going to die to keep gas at the pumps. I try to remember that fact each time I fill-up and I'm honestly trying to be more conservative in my use as a result.

IOW, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Homey-

Absolutely nothing wrong with putting history into context with what's going on today. Doing so to take a shot at people whose politics you disagree with is what I thought detracted from what you were writing.

[Okla-homey]

Homey-

Absolutely nothing wrong with putting history into context with what's going on today. Doing so to take a shot at people whose politics you disagree with is what I thought detracted from what you were writing.

I hate it when profs do that in class, but this is different cuz you aren't a captive audience.;)

[Frozen Sooner]

I do as well. Good thing I skipped American History a lot, eh?

Did you watch the President's news conference this morning? I thought he came off very well.

I did think it was interesting that he flat-out said that the invasion of Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11 other than that Hussein's oppression of his people was conducive to the recruitment of terrorists. I admit that I was dozing while listening (I hadn't gotten out of bed yet) but that one startled me right up.

[Okla-homey]

I do as well. Good thing I skipped American History a lot, eh?

Did you watch the President's news conference this morning? I thought he came off very well.

I did think it was interesting that he flat-out said that the invasion of Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11 other than that Hussein's oppression of his people was conducive to the recruitment of terrorists. I admit that I was dozing while listening (I hadn't gotten out of bed yet) but that one startled me right up.

I think he's honestly trying to lay solid groundwork with the American people (and whoever's listening) that we're going to be there as long as these jihaadis are playing offense.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, I agree. Kinda sucks on the one hand-I've got a couple of friends and my nephew in the 172 Stryker-they're the guys who got a six-month extension a few weeks ago 24 hours before they were supposed to head home-but on the other hand, there's no real way we can leave anytime soon.