CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS AT THE COURT OF FERDINAND THE CATHOLIC AND ISABELLA OF CASTILE. [The moment chosen for this painting is the beginning of American history, when Isabella having offered her jewels to defray the expenses of the expedition, the contract Fac-simile of the great painting by Brozik Vacslav, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Central Park, New York. MAGAZINE OF AMERICAN HISTORY VOL. XXV APRIL, 1891 No. 4 IN THE "CHESAPEAKE" AND LIEUTENANT LUDLOW N the last December number of the "Century Magazine," in a picturesque and graphic article, intended, as I am informed, to correct errors in prior histories of the naval conflicts of the war of 1812, occurs one error of fact, trifling, perhaps, but which in the interest of historical accuracy it may be worth while to endeavor to set right. At page 217 of the December Century is an account of the ever memorable engagement between the United States frigate Chesapeake of forty-nine guns and the English fifty-two gun frigate Shannon. It was in the course of this engagement that Captain Lawrence U. S. N., Lieutenant Augustus C. Ludlow U. S. N., and other junior officers, including Lieutenant James Broome U. S. M., and Midshipman Courtland Livingston U. S. N., fell fighting gallantly but unsuccessfully for their common country. For several reasons this engagement has always attracted great public and critical attention. It did eighty years ago, and it does still. Indeed, the "Don't give up the Ship" of the dying Lawrence has become proverbial with Americans as a war cry, and one synonymous with patriotism and courageous fidelity to duty. After Lawrence fell, the command of the ship devolved for a short space upon the ranking line officer Ludlow, who the writer of the Century article erroneously states was an officer of marines. In the course of his narrative the same writer intimates, I think, that the loss of the Chesapeake is in some measure explained by the youth and inexperience of her junior officers, including Lieutenant Ludlow, then only just arrived at manhood. It is the purpose of this paper to endeavor to show that the Lieutenant Ludlow thus referred to in the Century was an officer of the line and not an officer of marines, and that he was a highly efficient and capable officer in spite of his extreme youth. In all prior histories of this engagement these facts have been conceded and justly so. No doubt, the error in the Century is simply an accident currente calamo. All the American accounts of the engagement between the Chesapeake VOL. XXV.-No. 4.-19 and the Shannon-and they are many-concur in the indubitable fact that the Chesapeake was on this occasion not well prepared for action, having newly shipped her crew, which was to some extent composed of landsmen or undisciplined material. The uncertain result of a battle between such a crew and a ship's company such as the Shannon's, long trained by service on a foreign station and equally well officered and armed, was therefore almost a foregone conclusion, but it was not an inevitable conclusion. The odds could not have been unthought of, either by Lawrence or his officers, when the Chesapeake went out to meet the Shannon; but the fact was that from experience they undervalued their enemy. There is fortunately no record of a moment's hesitation in offering battle on the part of the officers of the Chesapeake, and there was none. The Chesapeake, colors flying, ports open, and guns shotted ready for action, sailed out to meet her enemy with a view to the engagement, and ready to win or to accept the fate of war. The writer in the Century states, in substance, that it would have been the part of prudence for the Chesapeake to have avoided this conflict until her crew had been better trained to duty. It might have been the part of "prudence," but prudence has never been esteemed the highest quality in a man-of-war. A letter (here first published) from Lieutenant Augustus C. Ludlow to his brother Captain Charles Ludlow, of the United States navy, however, shows that, contrary to general opinion, her officers thought the Chesapeake then in good fighting trim. This letter was written only three days before the battle: Dear Brother: "U. S. Frigate Chesapeake, Boston, May 28, 1813. From your not writing I presume you are very busy farming. Captain Lawrence is our captain. . . . There are only three frigates now cruising off Boston bay; they send in no prizes, but burn them all. Commodore Brooke says he does not intend to weaken his men by manning prizes. I have every reason to believe you will have your rank this summer. I will assure you it makes a great noise in the way you have been treated. I had no idea any one officer would raise such a talk by his resigning. It shows to the world that you are well known and much thought of. There is report we shall go to sea in six days, but I cannot believe it. I hardly think we shall go out in such fine weather, when there is three frigates off. The ship is in better order for battle than ever I saw her before. Page is going out. Our first lieutenant Price has left the ship. There is no news here except flour has fallen $3 on the barrel, owing to two ships getting in from the southward loaded with flour. They were bound to Cadiz, but put in in distress. It is now $18 per barrel. Your affectionate brother A. LUDLOW." Lieutenant Ludlow should have known the fighting qualities of the Chesapeake, for he was familiar with the ship, and on her prior cruise had been her third lieutenant. The Lieutenant Page mentioned in the letter was taken ill and did not go out on the Chesapeake, while Lieutenant [From a painting loaned by Rear Admiral Augustus Ludlow Case, U. S. N.] Price was granted permission to leave the ship for cause. This left Lieutenant Ludlow the first officer; but Captain Lawrence knew him well, and it was agreeable to him, they having served together on the Hornet. The writer of the Century article states also that "when Captain Lawrence observed the British frigate in the offing, . . obeying the impulse of a brave but impetuous nature, he made sail to engage." This as a technical criticism is not quite accurate: it attributes too much to the mere impulse of Lawrence, too little to his prior experience as a naval tactician. The official report of the action, made at the time to the . |