Sailing for Independence: How the Ships of the
Continental Navy Affected the American Revolution
Sarah Kent
HTY 498
December 18, 2012
1
I. Introduction
Before there were trains, cars, and planes the sea provided the fastest travel route. As a
result, sailing ships became one of the most important modes of transportation. They carried
colonists to the New World and allowed trade to continue among the colonies, Europe, and the
Caribbean. In addition, these grand ships brought warfare to the high seas. Britain mastered this
art and had the largest and strongest navy in the world, which countless times gave them an
advantage over their opponents. This did not deter the colonists from taking on the British Navy.
The Continental Navy came together slowly. Initially, naval combat was primarily performed by
the ships owned by the army, and by privateers who were legally sanctioned by the government
to take actions against the enemy. As the colonies developed their own navy, they further
developed shipbuilding, and many times ship conversion to create vessels ready to make war
against Great Britain. Great Britain and the colonies used many of the same types of ships, but
often made their own modifications in order to better serve their cause. Ships used by the
colonies included brigs, brigantines, luggers, cutters, frigates, sloops and sloops of war along
with several other models.1 Each of these ships served its own purpose. For example, smaller
ships, such as cutters, were most frequently used for privateering, but each style of ship played a
role in the American Revolution. The naval battles of the American Revolution became key to
the American success and the British defeat. However, if the ships used by each navy had
differed in any way the outcome could have drastically changed. Certain ships were used for
battles, while others were used for the efforts of privateers. If the Continental Navy did not have
1
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
19
2
the types of ships that it did, it would not have been as effective. The Continental Navy and the
types of ships that it used were an important part of the American victory in the Revolution.
II. A New Approach
One of the most valuable secondary sources on the Continental navy was Sea Raiders of
the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in European Waters by E. Gordon BowenHassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. This government document was very effective
because it examined in detail three Continental Navy captains that sailed in European waters and
preyed on British ships.2 Included in this were accounts of the voyages of Lambert Wickes,
Gustavus Connyngham, and John Paul Jones. For each naval captain a brief biography was
given and then each of their cruises in European waters were closely examined. This was a very
effective approach because it allowed each individual presented to be thoroughly understood,
and for the reader to clearly see why each individual was vital to the Revolutionary cause. In
addition, because each of these men were captains in the Continental Navy this text revealed the
efficiency and effectiveness of the Continental Navy, which demonstrated its importance as a
whole, to the Revolutionary cause.3
Although this was a very strong source, it lacked several valuable aspects. For one, it
only featured three captains making its sample size very small, and therefore its argument rather
weak because there wasn’t much to support it. In addition, as far as proving the importance of
the Continental Navy in European waters, it focused more on the people and their actions than
the navy as a whole. Also, with the focus being on Europe huge swaths of history relating to the
Continental navy were omitted which might have strengthened the authors argument. So, for a
2
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003)
3
Ibid
3
more comprehensive look at the Continental Navy, Nathan Millier’s book, Sea of Glory was the
one to use. This text featured an overview of the actions of the Continental Navy throughout the
war in both the American and European theatres. In order, to support his claims Miller used
several small case studies in each chapter to reinforce the topic. He covered everything from the
failures of the British Board of Admiralty to the formation of the Continental fleet and beyond.
It was beneficial to have such a broad overview, but when it came to understanding the full
benefits of the Continental Navy in the American Revolution this text lacked specific details that
would explain why the navy was effective at this time. It did not look into what aspects made
the Continental Navy so strong for such a brief existence or any weaknesses it had.4 Through the
ships that the Continental Navy used both its strengths and shortcomings can be examined to the
fullest extent. By looking at the different ship types, and then specific examples of each, the
base of what was to become a very powerful navy can truly be seen. In order to fully understand
the value of such ships, one must first understand the amount of effort that went into their
construction.
III. Shipbuilding
For the island nation of Great Britain and her thirteen American colonies, sailing and the
sea were a way of life. As a result, shipbuilding was a key part of society. Although
shipbuilding was more prominent in England, it played a vital role in the colonies as well. The
existence of shipbuilding in colonial America prior to the Revolution made the formation of a
navy that much easier.5 The construction of a ship required highly skilled craftsmen. If the
4
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974)
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 113114
5
4
process was not done with care the ship would not last, and thus time and money were wasted.6
Ships were most frequently commissioned by merchants who would then pay the ship builder in
three stages. These terms were outlined in the formal contract which contained dimensions of
the ship, the features that the merchant wanted it to contain, how payments were to be made, a
delivery date was set, and it concluded with what would happen if the merchant or the builder
did not uphold his end of the bargain. After the contract was signed the merchant began making
payments to the builder. Merchants often divided their payments up, “one part in cash, one in
West Indian rum and sugar, and the last in British goods.”7 With the contracts squared away
building could commence on the ship.
As with any building project, the process of shipbuilding began with the drafting of a
plan for the ship. These plans contained the dimensions of the ship, but also kept in mind what
the vessel was to be used for. Shipwrights had three sets of plans. One set showed the side view
of the ship, the second showed the floor plan, and the third showed a cross section of the ship.
However, on rare occasions the shipwright built the ship just by sight.8 This usually happened
only when a builder was particularly familiar with a certain style of ship “The numerous 20-ton
coasting schooners of Massachusetts and South Carolina were probably produced in this rough
yet effective fashion.”9 From here, it was the shipwright’s responsibility, along with his crew, to
begin modeling the design of the ship. This could be done one of two ways, either with the
whole molding method or the sweep method. In each method, the builder began by building
each section of the frame, which was composed of arcs known as sweeps. In the whole molding
method the builder “made two full-scale bend and hollow molds and utilized the same design
6
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 111112
7
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 85
8
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 86-87
9
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 86
5
method to reproduce the shape of any station.”10 The sweep method then enlarged sections of
molding in the body plan of the ship. The builder then made a full-scale wooden model, which
was used to construct the ship.
After the work was completed on the model the shipbuilder began acquiring the
materials necessary for constructing the ship. The first material that was purchased was the
lumber. In order to defer some of these costs, the lumber for the ships was often purchased in
the form of timbers that had to be cut into planks. This lessened the expense that the shipwright
had to put out because it eliminated the extra cost incurred by pre-cut lumber. All this meant for
the shipwright was that he needed to put in the extra labor to cut the timbers into usable planks
for the ship.11 However, cutting logs into planks was by no means a simple process. During the
eighteenth century the logs had to be cut by hand most of the time. In order to cut logs, groups
of up to four men had to use a ripsaw over a pit. All of their efforts generally produced only four
planks per log.12 Despite the intense labor, the planks produced were key for the proper
construction of a ship.13 Shipwrights were particularly picky about the type of wood that was
used, especially when it came to the construction of war ships. For example, to produce a Royal
Navy ship, the shipwright only used Sussex Oak. This particular type of wood was considered to
be the ideal lumber for the construction of a ship. However, once supplies were diminished,
Royal shipyards began to try American lumber, and they discovered that one type of American
oak was actually superior to the Sussex Oak “The North American live oak […] was later found
10
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 87
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 88-89
12
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 205
13
Ibid.
11
6
to be superior to English oak in many respects […]”14 Initially though the English focused on the
use of American White oak, which was lower quality than the Sussex oak.15
The lumber in particular, cost the shipwright the most money, however, each stage of
shipbuilding incurred its own costs.16 For example, on the ship Defense, a gentleman named
James Bennet was paid twelve shillings for just two days of work on the ship, when seven
carpenters worked on the same ship for thirty-five days at eighteen shillings and six pence.17
These numbers demonstrated that the cost of the ship varied not just because of the cost of
materials and the amount of business that the shipyard was getting, but that the cost of the many
hired laborers on the shipyard also varied greatly based on an individuals level of skill.18 The
shipwright, though, was perhaps the most skilled of the ships laborers because “A shipwright
combined the skills of a carpenter, caulker, joiner, and a painter.”19 Usually though the
shipwright hired ironworkers, carvers, painters, and joiners to make the ship as ornate as the
owner wanted it, once the ship was completed.20 Before these men were hired though, the
builder and his employees had a great deal of work to do turning their models into a ship.
The first step of this process was to outline their models in the mould loft. The mould
loft had very high ceilings to incorporate the grand elevation of the ship.21 In these mould lofts
the master shipwright drew the lines of the vessel to scale, and then proceeded to chalk out the
side elevations on the wall.22 This allowed them to shape and cut the lumber to match the
designs that the shipwright had drawn up. After this was completed the ship was constructed
14
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 206
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 206
16
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 4, comp. William Bell Clark, 13
17
Ibid
18
Ibid
19
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 205
20
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 88-89
21
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 206
22
Ibid
15
7
outside in the open air, which was supposed to make the timber stronger because it was exposed
to the elements. Sometimes though, the ships faced too much weather and they became wrought
with mildew before ever setting sail.23 The first piece of the vessel to be built was the keel. The
keel was the centerpiece of the ship, which the planks that composed the hull radiated out from.24
The keel was the foundation for the rest of the ship, “The ship was built on this backbone.”25
Once the stempost and sternpost were attached to either end of the keel; the rest of the ships
skeleton was built up around it. After the skeleton of the ship was built, the planking was added
in two layers. The first layer to be added was the inner layer, which was then followed by the
outer layer. In the colonies most planking was connected with wooden pegs and not metal nails
because metal was in short supply.26 The final phase to complete the body of the ship was to add
the decks after all of the planking was secured.27
Once the main body of the ship was completed the hull of the ship was then sheathed.
This was generally done before the ship was painted. The sheathing contained tar and hair, and
was designed to protect the hull of the ship. However, sometimes the hull was sheathed with
copper, which further protected it. Copper sheathing on the hull protected it from the teredo
worm, weeds, and barnacles. Since the presence of barnacles or weeds on the hull could cause
the ship to slow down, copper sheathing could make the ship go faster than the more simplistic
tar and hair sheathing.28 Sheathing protected the hull from the wear and tear of the ocean
including sea worms and the harsh tropical climate of the Caribbean islands.29 However, before
23
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 207
The Bosun’s Mate. “Keel,” Nautical Glossary, 2012, accessed December 7, 2012,
http://www.bosunsmate.org/glossary/term/291/Keel/
25
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 207
26
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 207
27
Ibid.
28
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 208
29
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 90
24
8
sheathing occurred the owner of the vessel had to approve the construction of the ship, including
the parts that the sheathing hid once applied.30
IV. The Crew and the Launch
Once the ship was built and painted it was time for the shipwright and the owner of the
ship to prepare for its launch and find a crew. The crew could be found in several ways.
Members of the crew could choose their own ship, or as in the case of the Continental navy, they
could be appointed. Much like making the decision on where to build warships, appointments to
them were often political matters.31 For example, in Rhode Island a committee was appointed to
oversee the construction of two ships of war. In their journal entry from May 27, 1776, the
members of the crew for one of the ships being built was discussed. In this passage it was stated
that Captain Hopkins was to write a letter or go to Boston to offer Captain Adams the post of
first lieutenant on one of the ships. If he went to Boston, the committee voted to pay for all of his
expenses. In addition, the committee voted to make James Eldred midshipman of one of the
warships on this day.32 It was important to note that not one southerner was appointed to either
of the warships that were built in Rhode Island at this time. This demonstrated several things.
One it demonstrated how strong regional ties were in the colonies at this time. This also showed,
however, the political nature of naval appointments because it was the business of a committee to
approve the appointments. The regional monogamy of the crew hints at potential favors for
close kin or acquaintances.33 While the crew was being determined, the ship could be prepared
for launch.
30
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, 90
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 204
32
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 268-269
33
Ibid.
31
9
The first piece of business in preparing for a launch was to lay ways, which were parallel
boards that the ship was dragged over to bring it to the water. In some instances, a cradle was
built to further aid the boats launch into the water “Then the carpenters could build a cradle, with
its upper part conforming to the underbody of the vessel and its lower section matching the ways
beneath […] launchings do not always specify the use of a cradle […]”34 During the launch the
ship was held to the structure by temporary ropes that were cut once the it was launched. For
many, the launch was an exciting and celebratory time. The owner of the ship finally received
his newly crafted vessel, while the shipwright received his final payment. Launchings were
arranged around holidays, and around dinners that were held just for the occasion. For example,
John Hancock arranged a ship launch in 1770 to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day.35 The occasion
was concluded with the christening of the ship and a toast in its honor.36 The launch was such a
special occasion because the building process was so risky itself. Ships could be damaged by
either severe weather such as hurricanes or by accidents with in the shipyard.37 In addition, the
importance of a ships launch demonstrated how central ships were to early American life.
V. The Brig
Although all ships played a vital role in the colonies at this time, not all were designed for
the same purpose. Each type of ship had a specific strength and a job for which it was primarily
designed. One such type of ship was the brig.38 A brig had two masts, each of which had square
34
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976), 9091
35
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976), 91
36
Ibid
37
Joseph Goldenburg. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976), 9293
38
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
19
10
rigging.39 In addition, on the furthest back mast was a gaff sail.40 The gaff sail was the sail
attatched to a free swinging beam (spar) known as the gaff.41 The brig was used in the
Revolutionary conflict, and certainly managed to give the British some grief. One of the most
famous brigs of the American Revolution was the Reprisal captained by Lambert Wickes. The
Reprisal served Wickes more than well on several occasions.42 One such occasion was recorded
in the journal of the HMS Liverpool whose captain was Henry Bellew.43 On Monday May 27,
1776 the Liverpool encountered the Reprisal off of Cape Henlopen. With favorable winds, the
Reprisal sailed away from the British ship, but it would not escape so easily. The British ship
decided to give chase to the Reprisal. However, they had to give up upon reaching a shoal that
the British ship was unable to cross.44
The Liverpool was a frigate, which made it a much larger ship than the Reprisal. This
caused it to be unable to cross the shoal, which was no trouble for the smaller Reprisal. Earlier
in the engagement, the frigate that accompanied the Liverpool, the Roebuck, got stuck on the
shoal.45 The smaller, lighter Reprisal gave the colonists an advantage against the British because
it was easier for it to sail in the shallow waters of the Deleware River and the surrounding
39
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
70
40
The Bosun’s Mate. “Brig,” Nautical Glossary, 2012, accessed December 7, 2012,
http://www.bosunsmate.org/glossary/term/112/Brig/
41
The Bosun’s Mate. “Gaff,” Nautical Glossary, 2012, accessed December 7, 2012,
http://www.bosunsmate.org/glossary/term/237/Gaff/
42
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003), 2
43
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 277
44
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 277-278
45
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003), 2
11
Caribbean Islands that were its target.46 The main goal of Captain Lambert Wickes and the
Reprisal was to prey on British ships by interrupting their shipping patterns and hindering
Britain’s ability to carry out the Revolutionary conflict in North American waters.47 Having
ships such as the Reprisal, sent a strong message to Britain that the colonists were capable of
having their own ships that were able to successfully limit British activity along the coast.48 This
was key to the Revolutionary cause because these men, such as Lambert Wickes, played a vital
role in harassing the British. With out them, it would have been much simpler for the British to
blockade the American coast, and to get supplies to and from Britain for their troops. In addition,
if British ships were busy dealing with American ships off the coast it gave them less time to
focus on the blockade that they were supposed to be executing. With out the blockade being
successfully executed it was easier for American ships to make their way to the British coast and
further pester the British in their home waters.49
The Reprisal made its first journey to British waters on January 24, 1777.50 This was the
beginning of Wickes’ successful campaigns against the British until September 1777, when the
Reprisal and all but one of its crewmembers disappeared, just three days away from the
American coast.51 When Benjamin Franklin told the Continental Congress of Wickes’ death he
46
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
2-3
47
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003), 13
48
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 277-278
49
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003), 115
50
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003), 7
51
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
13-14
12
said, “ ‘This Loss is extreamly to be lamented; as he was a gallant Officer and a very worthy
man.’”52 Franklin knew what he was saying when he mourned the loss of Wickes because in
March 1777, Wickes and the Reprisal, carried Franklin safely to France.53 The fact that a brig,
by far not the largest of the Continental Navy ships, was entrusted with this vital task
demonstrated not only the effectiveness of Lambert Wickes, but also the effectiveness of the ship
as a whole. The colonial government must have known that a brig such as the Reprisal was both
quick enough and strong enough to carry someone as important as Benjamin Franklin from the
United States to France, with the very real possibility of being attacked by British ships.54 In
fact, Wickes did encounter some opposition on this cruise, but from these encounters he
managed to take two ships as prizes for the Continental Navy, “She took two prizes, which she
also carried into a French port.”55 The success of the Reprisal during the war made it clear that
the brig was a very effective form of ship for the Continental Navy however; it was not the only
type of ship that was beneficial.
VI. The Brigantine
Closely related to the brig was the brigantine. A brigantine was also a vessel with two
square-rigged masts. The only way in which it differed from the brig was that it lacked the
square mainsail.56 In general, the fore mast of a brigantine was the only portion that had squarerigging, as the rear sail was usually designed to be rigged with a gaff, which was a moveable
52
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
14
53
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1777,
Volume 8, comp. William Bell Clark, 31
54
Ibid
55
Ibid
56
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
70
13
beam.57 Although, very similar to brigs these differences were important to acknowledge when
examining the effectiveness of each type of ship to the American Revolution. Like the brig, the
brigantine, was able to move quickly while still packing plenty of firepower.58 One of the
brigantines employed by the Continental Navy was the Lexington. The Lexington was with the
Reprisal on its final voyage.59
According to a 1776 Marine Committee correspondence the captain of the Lexington was
John Barry.60 In this correspondence, the Marine Committee suggested to Captain Barry that he
take the Lexington on a cruise while he waited for his warship to be built. They hoped that
during this cruise Captain Barry would capture several prizes that would be valuable to the
Revolutionary cause.61 The reason that the Marine Committee wanted Barry to go on a cruise at
that time was because they thought that the coast was too congested with British war ships for
the Lexington to do much good there.62 This demonstrated that the Marine Committee saw the
Lexington as the perfect ship to prey on British merchant ships, much like the Reprisal, but that it
was not considered to be able to defend the coast against enemy attack. More importantly this
demonstrated that certain ships were better suited to certain types of tasks. Ships such as brigs
and brigantines were more effective for taking on more lightly armed merchant ships, where as
57
The Bosun’s Mate. “Brigantine,” Nautical Glossary, 2012, accessed December 8, 2012,
http://www.bosunsmate.org/glossary/term/113/Brigantine/
58
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
14
59
Ibid
60
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 878
61
Ibid
62
Ibid
14
the larger ships such as the frigates, were better suited for taking on Britain’s large warships that
plagued the coast.63
By March 1777, John Barry no longer captained the Lexington. The new commander of
the Lexington was Captain Hallock. Captain Hallock was not as fortunate as Captain Barry
because on March 9, 1777 the British ship the Pearl captured the Lexington.64 This demonstrated
that while brigantines were useful and valuable ships to have they were not invincible. However,
the same letter that spoke of the Lexington’s capture also contained details of her almost
immediate escape “but in the night the Americans repossessed themselves of their vessel, and I
suppose got safe to Philadelphia.”65 This demonstrated the benefits of a ship, such as a
brigantine, because within twenty-four hours of its capture the Lexington was able to escape the
clutches of the British. The quick escape of the Lexington revealed that it was a fast ship, a very
valuable trait for a sailing ship, especially one that was designed to interfere with British
shipping during the American Revolution.66 However, the fact that the Lexington was captured
suggests that the brigantine was a model of ship not quite fast enough to avoid capture, and not
quite powerful enough to fight off any sizeable captor.67 However, if the Lexington had been any
larger it never would have been able to escape from the British. Thus, while the style of the
brigantine gave the Lexington some disadvantages, it overwhelmingly allowed it to escape from
its captors.68
63
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 878
64
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1777,
Volume 8, comp. William Bell Clark, 72
65
Ibid
66
Ibid
67
Ibid
68
Ibid
15
VII. The Frigate
If the brigantine was fast but lacking in firepower, then the frigate was certainly the
opposite. Unlike the brig and the brigantine the frigate had three masts, each of which had
multiple sails. In addition, frigates had multiple decks each of which held between twenty and
forty-four guns. Another difference between the frigate, brigs, and brigantines was that the
frigate had ship rigging, not square rigging. 69 Although frigates were clearly ships of massive
power and size, they did come in different size ranges. For example, the British often used
smaller frigates to attack American merchant ships.70 The Marine Committee decided to build
three different types of frigates. They were going to build one each with twenty-four, twentyeight, and thirty-two guns. Although the British Navy had ships with similar amounts of guns,
the ships planned by the Americans were actually larger, “all to be larger than similar ships in
service with the British and French navies.”71
One of these large frigates was the Raleigh, which was constructed in Portsmouth, New
Hampshire in 1776. The Raleigh was constructed in Portsmouth largely as a favor to John
Langdon, a prominent merchant who was a former member of the Continental Congress.72 One
of the larger Continental frigates to be constructed at this time, the Raleigh had thirty-two guns.
Other frigates built at this time with thirty-two guns were the Hancock, the Warren, the
Randolph, and the Washington.73 Although building such a large ship was a great honor for the
towns and cities selected to build them, the cost of building these ships was astronomical and
69
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
70
70
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
18
71
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 203
72
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 204
73
Ibid
16
often put great strain on their builders to get the needed supplies.74 In a correspondence between
John Langdon and Nicholas Brown from May 27, 1776, Langdon stated that he was having
difficulty obtaining the supplies that he needed to complete the construction of the Raleigh.75
This correspondence demonstrated that although frigates were valuable to the navy because of
the number of guns that they could hold, the difficulty of constructing them made them an
expensive part of the Continental Navy.76 As a result, the Continental Navy was initially
composed more of redone merchant ships and other small ships.77 Part of the reasoning behind
this was that the colonies hesitated to create a formal navy, and as a result the Continental Army
created a small sailing fleet to protect the colonies’ coastal waters.78
Nonetheless the navy was created, which allowed for the construction of large frigates
such as the Raleigh.79 Despite the cost and difficulty of constructing the Raleigh, Portsmouth
persisted in her construction. Also dated May 27, 1776 was a correspondence between John
Langdon and Jeremiah Stamford.80 In this correspondence, Langdon informed Stamford that he
had received the canvas that he ordered from him “Your favo’r post I’ve recd: am glad the
Canvas is come, to hand […]”81 These correspondences between Langdon and men associated
with building the frigate Raleigh demonstrated that a great deal went into the construction of a
74
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 204
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 263
76
Ibid
77
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
17-18
78
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy in
European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
viii-ix
79
Ibid
80
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 264
81
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 264
75
17
ship.82 Despite all of these difficulties, the Raleigh was completed. The Freeman’s Journal on
Saturday, May 25, 1776, ran an article describing the launch of the Raleigh.83 This article
detailed the celebrations associated with the launch of the ship, and made it clear that it was a
source of great pride for the town of Portsmouth “She is esteemed by all those who are judges
that have seen her, to be one of the compleatest ships ever built in America.”84
As of June 24, 1776, Thomas Thompson was appointed as the commander of the
Raleigh.85 After the crew of the Raleigh was appointed they were able to begin cruising the seas
to aid the American war effort. On April 29, 1777, Thompson was ordered by the Marine
Committee to sail in the area around New York and prey on British vessels attempting to enter
the area.86 This began the Raleigh’s career as a frigate of the Continental Navy. During this
voyage the Raleigh was able to out power a British frigate, the Druid. This revealed that the
Americans were successful in creating a large frigate that was superior to those of the British.87
This gave the Americans a boost in morale because it proved that there two-year-old navy was
capable of taking on one of the greatest navies in the world at the end of the eighteenth century.
The frigate as a ship was effective because it carried a lot of guns, had the Americans been
unable to create a frigate that could out do a British frigate, their victory in the war would have
been improbable if not impossible.88
82
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 263-264
83
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 246-247
84
Ibid.
85
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1776,
Volume 5, comp. William Bell Clark, 704
86
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 233
87
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 235
88
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 233-236
18
VIII. The Cutter
In contrast to the frigate a cutter, had very few guns, and thus relied more on its speed
than its firepower. A cutter was a medium sized ship with a single mast, a jib, a mainsail, and a
forestaysail. It was “a small, speedy sailing vessel similar to a sloop.”89 A ship of this size and
speed was useful to the Continental Navy because it allowed them easy sailing access along the
rocky shores of the colonies, and around the coast of Britain. Although these ships were useful
because of their size and speed, there were only two employed by the Continental Navy.90 The
scarcity of the vessels in the Continental Navy resulted from the small number of guns that they
could carry. The cutter the Dolphin carried only ten guns, while the other cutter, the Cerf, had
only 18 guns.91 Of the two frigates the Dolphin was the more famous one, as it had sailed with
the Reprisal on its final voyage across the sea.
Samuel Nicolson captained the Dolphin when it first made its way into European waters.
On this cruise it was to sail in the Irish Sea with the Lexington and harass enemy ships. The ten
guns on the Dolphin were only three pound guns, making her a fairly weak vessel.92 In fact these
ten guns weakened the Dolphin more than they aided her “Slowed down by the Dolphin, which
proved to be a poor sailor due to the added weight of her guns […]”93 Since she was weighed
down with ammunition the Dolphin lost the main aspect that made the cutter a useful ship.
Without speed, cutters were simply a small boat with few guns that was a detriment to the rest of
a fleet because it had to be protected from larger, stronger ships. However, when sailing well a
cutter was a valuable part of the Continental Navy because most of the large warships were too
89
Britannica Encyclopedia. “Cutter” Cutter, 2012, accessed December 16, 2012,
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 528-529
91
Ibid
92
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 290-291
93
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 293
90
19
bulky to sail with any speed.94 Had the Dolphin been better modified to carry guns, or had fewer
guns, she would have been a more effective member of the Continental Navy.95
The Dolphin managed to capture some prizes when it was sailing with Lambert Wickes
off the coast of England.96 The fact that the Dolphin was so often accompanied by a larger ship,
such as the brig Reprisal, revealed that it was not powerful enough to fight off most enemy ships,
and therefore needed more powerful ships to protect it. In a correspondence, Captain Samuel
Nicholson even expressed his joy at being able to rejoin Captain Lambert Wickes. Through this
statement it became clear that he was very thankful to be back with a larger ship that was more
capable of protecting the Dolphin from enemy attack.97 However, in this same correspondence
from June 28, 1777 Nicholson made it clear that the Dolphin, despite its issues with sailing, was
still speedy enough to outrun enemy craft “when I made another Sail bareg down on me I did not
make Sail from her till I made her out to be an Armed Snow, on wch I made all the Sail I coud &
run for this Port, I think in abt 4 hours I run him out of Sight.”98 This revealed that although the
Dolphin was not suited for fighting with enemy ships it was perfectly suited for making a quick
get away, although not as quick as it would have with out the extra guns. This was a valuable
feature in a ship that mostly sailed off of the European coast because it was able to get away
from or follow enemy ships that it wanted to hinder.99
94
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 293
Ibid
96
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1777,
Volume 8, comp. William Bell Clark, 863
97
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1777,
Volume 9, comp. William Bell Clark, 441
98
Ibid
99
Ibid
95
20
This correspondence from Nicholson came after his cruise with Wickes, and was clearly
his attempt to get the American commissioners that were in France to refit the Dolphin.100 He
acknowledged that it might not be the most feasible or profitable task because the Dolphin would
need a new mast and bowsprit, but nonetheless he pleaded with them to recommission his ship,
which he praised for being “tight & Strong”.101 Nicholson even made the offer that the Dolphin
be repurposed as a packet ship, or a ship that simply carried supplies for the armed services.
This demonstrated that Nicholson was aware of his ships limitations, but also that he was aware
that she was good for something.102 Nicholson’s high praise of his ship also demonstrated that
he knew that his ship, or another ship similar to it, was worthwhile for the Continental Navy to
employ.103 Although cutters were not particularly useful in battle they were valuable for the
Continental Navy when it came to carrying supplies, outrunning other ships, and even raiding
small ships. The mark of a valuable ship was not always its ability to withstand conflict.
IX. The Lugger
Luggers were another example of a small vessel used by the Continental Navy. They
had four sided sails, known as lugsails, and were typically used for fishing or coastal cruising.104
One of the most famous luggers used by the Continental Navy was the Surprize. Much like the
brig the Reprisal, the Surprize was used to sail in foreign waters in order to bring the war to
Britain. Gustavus Conyngham who was appointed as a captain in the Continental Navy by
100
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1777,
Volume 9, comp. William Bell Clark, 442
101
Ibid
102
Ibid
103
Ibid
104
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
70
21
Benjamin Franklin on March 1, 1777 commanded the Surprize.105 On the night of May 1, 1777
Conyngham snuck out to the ship, moored off the coast of France, and fitted it out with guns and
the extra crewmen necessary for operating a warship. He had to sneak out to the ship because if
the French were obviously helping the Americans it would violate their treaty with Britain. The
first time Conyngham took out the newly refitted vessel he was able to capture a British mail
ship, the Prince of Orange.106 This initial success demonstrated that although luggers were small
they were able to take control of a British ship and play an effective role in the American
Revolution. However, this joy was short lived, as the Surprize was soon taken captive as a result
of British complaints about the French breaking their neutrality agreement with Britain.107 The
ease with which the Surprize was captured revealed that although luggers were a good temporary
fix for the Continental Navy they were not really meant for warfare, and could not compete with
the Royal Navy.108 The involvement of the lugger in the Continental Navy was left over from
the beginning of the war when General Washington assembled his own fleet to fill the void
created by the absence of a navy.109 Luggers were from these temporary fleets because of the
way in which they were designed, which was much more suited to commercial not military
use.110
105
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
18
106
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
20
107
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 292-293
108
Ibid
109
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
viii-ix
110
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
70
22
X. The Sloop and the Sloop of War
The sloop was, much like the lugger, in that it was unsuited for the type of war that the
Americans carried out against the British. The sloop was “a fore-and-aft rigged vessel with one
mast and a single headsail jib.”111 Since the sloop was a smaller ship it played a minimal role in
the American Revolution with only a few sloops in the entire fleet.112 As a result the sloop was
modified, to make it more effective for the war effort. These hybrid ships were known as sloops
of war. The sloop of war was only slightly smaller than a frigate, and as a result was one of the
stronger ships in the Continental fleet.113 These were similar to sloops because they had the
same type of rigging. However, the sloop of war was fitted out to be a smaller warship. These
ships were capable of carrying about twenty guns.114 The most famous of the sloops of war was
the Ranger, which was captained by John Paul Jones.115
John Paul Jones and the Ranger became famous for being the first American ship to
receive international recognition while flying the flag of the United States.116 This first salute
came while Jones was anchored in Quiberon Bay during February 1778. The French Admiral La
Motte Piquet gave the salute to the Ranger, returning the Ranger’s thirteen-gun salute with nine
111
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
70
112
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 528-529
113
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
70
114
Britannica Encyclopedia. “Sloop of War,” Sloop, 2012, accessed December 10, 2012,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/548923/sloop
115
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
56-57
116
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
58-59
23
guns.117 This matter was particularly annoying to Jones who felt that the French were slighting
the American flag by not returning the salute gun for gun.118 A communiqué between William
Carmichael and Jones revealed that the French Admiral was not slighting Jones, but was merely
sticking to the custom that the French used. In addition, La Motte Piquet was more than willing
to go the extra mile to please Jones “The Admiral says he has no orders to render any other than
the common salute […] but that to [show] his respect for the flag of the congress, he is willing to
return three times the ordinary number.”119 This demonstrated that the French were more than
willing to appease their American allies because the Admiral was willing to go against his orders
so that he did not offend Jones.120 In addition, the reaction that Jones had, in relation to what he
assumed to be a slight from the French, demonstrated that he was aware of the importance of the
salute that he hoped to receive.121
Although receiving the first salute from a foreign power while flying the American flag
was one of the biggest accomplishments of the Ranger, there were other aspects of her career
that made this sloop of war one of the most famous in the entire war.122 John Paul Jones and the
Ranger captured two merchantment, destroyed others, took a British man of war captive,
captured approximately two hundred prisoners, and carried out a land raid during a cruise in
1778 that lasted only twenty-eight days.123 These mind-blowing numbers revealed the
117
Ibid
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
58-59
119
United States of America, United States Naval Department, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, 1778,
Volume 11, comp. William Bell Clark, 1004
120
Ibid
121
Ibid
122
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
58-59
123
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
61-62
118
24
effectiveness of Jones, his crew, and his ship. For a single sloop of war, to wreak so much havoc
on British shipping and the British war effort in under one month revealed that ships such as the
Ranger were designed for efficiency.124
The efficiency of Jones and his crew was best demonstrated by the incident when they
overtook the British ship the Drake in just under one hour.125 The Drake carried twenty guns
and was therefore an even match for the Ranger. Although they were evenly matched the Drake
and the Ranger did have some differences “Ranger had more and heavier armament but Drake
had more men.”126 To play up his benefits, Jones bombarded the Drake with cannon. This
disabled the ship, and prevented the Drake from getting close enough to the Ranger to board it.
Had the crew of the Drake been able to board the Ranger, Jones would have been at a
disadvantage because his men were outnumbered. As long as Jones was able to take advantage
of his greater firepower he had a slight advantage over the Drake.127 The fact that the American
ship had the greater firepower revealed not only that Americans were capable of constructing
powerful ships, but also that building powerful ships was a necessity for Americans.128 The
greatest problem that the Continental Navy faced during the American Revolution was a
shortage of sailors. The main cause of this problem was that the benefits for serving as a
privateer were far greater than that of serving in the Continental Navy. For example, privateers
usually made more money than members of the Continental Navy. As a result, the promise of
124
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
61-62
125
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
64
126
Ibid
127
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
64
128
Ibid
25
prize money from privateering encouraged most seafaring Americans to become involved in the
war effort as privateers not as members of the Continental Navy.129
The Continental Navy had to create ships such as the Ranger that were heavily armed to
make up for their smaller crews.130 Thus, the sloop of war was an important piece of the
Continental Navy because it was very versatile. It could carry many guns, which was always
helpful, but unlike frigates it did not require a sizeable crew to sail. Although if the numbers
existed it could have a larger crew than ships such as the Ranger had at times. The versatility of
the sloop of war was important because the supplies, and climate relating to the Continental
Navy were always changing. So, having a ship that could sail in almost any condition was vital
to the infant navy of the United Sates.131
XI. Conclusion
Although it may seem insignificant, the examination of the types of ships used by the
Continental Navy tell us a great deal about how the newfound navy was able to be so successful.
The Continental Navy was composed of many different types of ships. It had seven brigs, two
brigantines, twenty-one frigates, two cutters, one lugger, and eight sloops or sloops of war.132
The brig and brigantine were both helpful to the Revolutionary cause because they were able to
be both quick and powerful. This was perfect for the type of war that the Americans were
carrying out against the British. While the lugger, the sloops, and the cutters were barely useful
in combat, they served the important purpose of helping the Continental forces stay supplied.
The sloops of war, while still on the smaller side, were also able to combine speed and fire
129
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 120 and 125
United States of America, Department of Navy, Sea Raiders of the American Revolution: The Continental Navy
in European Waters, comp. E. Gordon Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. (Washington, 2003),
64
131
Ibid
132
Nathan Miller. Sea of Glory (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1974), 528-529
130
26
power. In contrast was the frigate, which may have been too large to move with much speed,
but which packed more firepower then many of the British frigates and gave the Americans an
important advantage over their British adversaries. The types of ships that were used in the
Revolution were not the only determining factor in the success of the Continental Navy, but with
out such a mix of ship,s each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and evidence of how
some performed better than others in certain situations, the true competence of the Continental
navy would never be known. This made it clear that these ships were a vital factor in both the
successes and failures of the Continental Navy. Their importance to the Continental Navy
revealed how these varying types of ships were important to the war effort as a whole because
without the Continental navy the war would have progressed very differently. The Continental
Navy may not have won the war for the Americans, but it was a crucial piece of the American
victory because it was able to hinder the efforts of the British. From 1775 to 1783 the
Continental Navy protected the seas for Americans. It has now faded into the past with little
remembrance of its glory. Small though it was, this navy and its ships were vital to the United
States’ triumph over Britain in the American Revolution.
27
Appendix 1: Types of Ships
Brig
Brigantine
Frigate
28
Cutter
Lugger
Sloop
29
Sloop of War
30
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
1. United States of America. United States Naval Department. Naval Documents
of the American Revolution, 1776, volume 4. Compiled by William Bell
Clark.
2. United States of America. United States Naval Department. Naval Documents
of the American Revolution, 1776, volume 5. Compiled by William Bell Clark.
3. United States of America. United States Naval Department. Naval Documents
of the American Revolution, 1777, volume 8. Compiled by William Bell Clark.
4. United States of America. United States Naval Department. Naval Documents
of the American Revolution, 1777, volume 9. Compiled by William Bell Clark.
5. United States of America. United States Naval Department. Naval Documents
of the American Revolution, 1778, volume 11. Compiled by William Bell Clark.
Secondary Sources:
1. The Bosun’s Mate. “Brig,” Nautical Glossary. 2012. Accessed December 7, 2012.
http://www.bosunsmate.org/glossary/term/112/Brig/
2. The Bosun’s Mate. “Brigantine.” Nautical Glossary. 2012. Accessed December 8,
2012. http://www.bosunsmate.org/glossary/term/113/Brigantine/
3. The Bosun’s Mate. “Gaff.” Nautical Glossary. 2012. Accessed December 7,
2012. http://www.bosunsmate.org/glossary/term/237/Gaff/
4. The Bosun’s Mate. “Keel.” Nautical Glossary. 2012. Accessed December 7,
2012. http://www.bosunsmate.org/glossary/term/291/Keel/
5. Britannica Encyclopedia. “Sloop of War.” Sloop. 2012. Accessed December 10,
2012. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/548923/sloop
6. Goldenburg, Joseph. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville.
University Press of Virginia, 1976.
7. Miller, Nathan. Sea of Glory. New York. David McKay Company, Inc, 1974
8. United States of America. Department of Navy. Sea Raiders of the American
Revolution: The Continental Navy in European Waters. Compiled by E. Gordon
Bowen-Hassell, Dennis M. Conrad, and Mark L. Hayes. Washington D.C, 2003.
31
Images:
1. Keys History. “Early American Sailing Ships.” Accessed December 17, 2012.
http://www.keyshistory.org/ASS-Amer-Sail-Ships.html
2. Merriam-Webster. “Lugger.” 2012. Accessed December 17, 2012.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lugger
3. One Simple Question. “The Boat, A Bristol Channel Cutter 28.” 2012. Accessed
December 17, 2012. http://simplequestionmovie.com/synopsis/theboat/
4. Schrebak. “War of 1812 Bicentennial Commemorative Edition.” Hornet and Wasp,
US Sloops of War Sailing Ship Models, 1:300 Scale. Accessed December 17,
2012. http://scherbakshipmodels.tripod.com/id156.html
5. Ted Brewer Yacht Design. “Friendship, A 39’ Friendship Sloop of Wood
Construction.” Accessed December 17, 2012.
http://www.tedbrewer.com/sail_wood/friendship.htm.
5. United States Navy Museum. “Frigate 1800.” Ships to Sea. Accessed
December 17, 2012. http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/teach/ships/ships5.htm
6. Wikipedia. “Hermaphrodite Brig.” 2007. Accessed December 17, 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hermaphrodite_brig_(PSF).png