A first look at the Frigate John Adams, 1799-1829

[uss frolick]

Looks like the 1840's Constitution with the Andrew Jackson figurehead. Love that quarter gallery window!

[uss frolick]

At the completion of the cruise, Captain Evans compiled what was a long and detailed letter to Secretary Hamilton, dated June 19, 1810, from Baltimore:

 

"Sir, I had the honor to address you on the 11th March last from Portsmouth, but I was obliged by indisposition to limit my latter to a few lines.

 

I now have the honor to inform you that agreeable to your instructions, of the 5th December, I weighed anchor from New York on the 15th of that month, and on the same day discharged the pilot from Sandy Hook. On the 3rd January, we struck soundings on the coast of England, and on the 7th, we were compelled by the setting of the current to Anchor in the Road of La Hague which is about 18 leagues to the westward of Havre.

 

On making inquiry, I found that Captain Fenwick could reach Paris from thence in forty-eight hours, I considered it more proper to forward the dispatches for General Armstrong immediately, than to run the risque of being a day or two on our passage to Havre, from whence it would take him nearly the same time to deliver them, I accordingly landed him with the approbation of the Government of the town that evening, and the next morning he proceeded to Paris. On the evening of the 8th, the tide answering, we weighed from La Hague, and as I was of the opinion that the voyage would be facilitating going to the downs, I availed myself of the latitude given me in your instructions and proceeded to that place, in preference to Portsmouth, here we arrived the following morning, and immediately sent Mr. Elliott London with the dispatches for Mr. Pinkney.

 

I would have left the Downs the same night for Holland, had I not been able, from indisposition to stand the deck in tempestuous weather, we almost daily experienced, fro which cause I deemed it necessary to engage a pilot, this detained us and the following day, we weighed for the Texell, but on the 14th weighed anchor for the Downs, for which we had bourn up for the proceeding evening, in an easterly gale by the urgent advice of the Pilot.

 

We were here detained by adverse winds, until the 17th when we again weighed anchor, and on the 19th arrived and moored in the Helder having struck several times on a bank off Camperdown through neglect of the Pilot, the ship however received no perceivable injury, on the following morning I dispatched Mr. Chew to Amsterdam, with the letters I had in charge of the Treasury Department, and directed him to make arrangements with the agent to receive the specie as nearly as possible. It was not until the 24th that the permission was obtained and the specie landed, it was not until the [?]th of February that Mr. Crew obtained the receipts for it and returned to the ship. Adverse winds prevented our leaving the Helder until the [?]th,  the passage out of which was so narrow that the leading wind [only?]  will admit this ship sailing out.

 

On the evening of the 14th, we ran through the Downs, from whence I found Mr. Pinkney, I expected to be in Portsmouth the following day and would be in readiness to receive Mr. Elliott with his dispatches, we anchored near Portsmouth on the 16th.

 

Here it appears necessary to mention that while I was in Holland, I received a letter from General Armstrong directing me not to wait there for Captain Fenwick to proceed to England, and after I concluded my business there to return to Havre or some other convenient port in France, for his dispatches.

 

On my arrival in England, i communicated this order to Mr. Pinkney, and as I believed it would be the cause of detaining the ship for some time, I provisioned her Portsmouth, for the period I supposed would be necessary, and availed myself with the credit you honored me with, on Messers james McKenzie and A. Glennie, to draw on them for disbursements, I however, I did not anticipate the long detention we were to experience in England, and the reports were so frequent and the dispatches were all to leave London, and the provision [priced] so extremely high, that I did not judge it prudent to procure large supplies, but furnished the ship at several different times, and drew for the whole amount of disbursements, including the supplies before mentions, [enclosed are] the following bills  .... "

 

Letter to be continued. This was only about a quarter of it so far ... 

Edited November 17, 2015 by uss frolick

[uss frolick]

The letter from Evans to Hamilton of June 19, 1810 continues ...

 

"The evening of the 25th, we had the satisfaction to receive Mr. Elliot on board with Mr. Pinkney's dispatches, and the next evening sailed for La Havre, where I had determined to proceed [illegible]. From thence I could have the most speedy communication with General Armstrong. We arrived off Havre about noon of the 28d, and I immediately sent Mr. Chew on board on shore to forward a letter I had written to General Armstrong announcing my arrival, and a letter and package from Mr. Pinkney to the general, which the former had told Mr. Elliot was not of sufficient consequence to justify the expense of sending an officer to Paris with it.  Mr. Chew got on board too late for the post, and he deposited the letter with the commissary of Police, who assured him they should be sent to Paris the following day with his own. In my letter to General Armstrong, I informed him that the Harbor of Havre was not a fit place for the ship, and the Road too much exposed, to remain in them, with safety, at that season. I had determined to stand off and on the town, until I could her from him. I likewise stated to him that it was my wish to proceed to Cherbourg with the ship, should he be deemed proper to detain her, as in that port I could moor with safety. This letter, the commissary informed Mr. Chew, was sent on the next dat (the 29th). As the distance from Havre to Paris was not more than a 36 hour ride, I soon expected to hear from General Armstrong. On the 3rd of April we [illegible] in the Roads and sent a boat on shore for intelligence, that evening the airs were light and the Pilot advised our anchoring to avoid being drifted by the tide near the shoals.

 

This I consented too, and at four in the afternoon, we anchored.  About four O'Clock in the morning of the 4th, the wind came in from the NE and by daylight it blew quite a gale. By 7, the sea had risen so high, that it made a breach over the ship on almost every pitch. The tide, as well as the wind, was directly on [illegible] and if we did not avail ourselves of the tide before 10 O'Clock, we could not enter that day, be the event, what it would. It seemed to me therefore necessary to chose one of two alternatives, that to let go all the anchors we could to advantage, and endeavor to ride it out, at all events, or to prepare to immediately run into the harbor. In both of these alternatives, I did believe there might be some danger. The gale blew heavy, and there was every appearance of its' increasing. The sea was then high, we were exposed to the whole range of the channel, and although the cables and anchors could possibly hold  her until she foundered, I had not the greatest confidence in those furnished at Washington, and saw clearly that if we parted from our anchors, it would next next to an impossibility to save the ship. On the other hand, I had been informed that the entrance was very narrow, and must consequently be dangerous to attempt with the wind, and the tide, then there was. I determined however to attempt the latter, after receiving assurance from the Pilot that he could carry her in with safety. Accordingly, at [illegible] O'clock we had everything prepared, and shortly after slipped our cable and stood for the harbor, on luffing around the entrance, we were [illegible] running on one side of it, owing to the Pilot not giving her sufficient room. In fact, we grazed the wall, but the ship received minimal injury, and by his further bad management, in directing the anchor to be let go too soon, we were obliged to cut the cable, to enable us to get with in the gates, before the tide left us. Soon however, we were within the gates, without further accident and moored alongside two French frigates."

 

Notice that Captain Evan sent Mr. Chew, the ships purser, on shore, instead of a midshipman or a lieutenant. He probably needed every able sea officer on board to work the ship.

 

To be continued ...

Edited November 17, 2015 by uss frolick

[uss frolick]

" ... on sending on shore to the Post Office, I received a letter from Captain Fenwick ( to whom I had written the same day I had written General Armstrong), stating that the general had expressed much astonishment at my not announcing my arrival to him.

 

As I had written three different letters to Captain Fenwick and the one I received from him seemed to be a reply to the second, which had been put into the Post Office I was apprehensive that those had sent on shore had been detained. I therefore immediately sent for the commissary, who had promised to forward them, to know why they had not been received, and to request a passport for one of my officers to Proceed to Paris, as I had determined, on the receipt of Captain Fenwick's note,  to send an officer with a letter to General Armstrong without delay. The commissary answered that he could not in any manner account for the letter not having been received, and he repeated his assurance, that he had duly forwarded them with his own. He without hesitation granted the passport, and the following morning, I dispatched Mr. Chew to General Armstrong, stating to him the manner his letters were forwarded, and as I had been obliged to enter the harbor, and might possibly meet with some detention, I desired him to furnish Mr. Chew with [illegible] of money for use of the ship. On this letter, Mr. Chew received from him one thousand dollars.

 

About One O'clock the same day, Captain Fenwick arrived with dispatches, as he had passed the carriage, with Mr. Chew in it about 15 miles from Havre, but it was closed and Mr. Chew did not see him.

 

Here it may be proper to observe, that it is only about the full, and the change of the moon, that vessels drawing more than 12 feet, can enter the Harbor of Havre, for one day [illegible] and sometimes for three days subsequent to these periods, the tide in the entrance flows so as to admit vessels drawing only two fathoms. The channel however is so narrow that, it is absolutely necessary to have a fair wind to sail in or out.

 

From the day of our entrance, until the arrival of Captain Fenwick, we had employed every favorable moment endeavoring to get out without success, and the day after his arrival, in which was the only one in which we could entertain the smallest hope of getting out, until the full of the moon. Every effort was again made, but after hauling the ship to the entrance of the gates, the Pilot said it was impossible to get out, as there was not sufficient water, and upon sending Lieutenant Pettigrew to sound the channel, he found but fourteen feet. and the shallowest part being two feet less than we drew."

 

[Note: The only known draught of water by the John Adams was measured on her departure from Messina, Sicily, on November 21, 1804, while fully laden for a return voyage to the United States, and was found to be 15', 10" forward, and 16', 6" aft. She was still a frigate at that time.]

 

"Here we found we must remain until the next full moon, and it was not until the second day after that, that we were able to get out, although we made several attempts, one of which, after being nearly clear, we were run aground by the Pilot and obliged to return. On the night, however, of the 20th of april, we got out, and the following day, after recovering, the anchor and cable we had slipped in the Roads, we sailed for America From that, until the present period, nothing has transpired worthy of note. Indeed, I should have not troubled you with this tedious statement respecting La Havre, had I not understood General Armstrong disapproved of my going there.

 

During our absence, we have boarded and been board by several British cruisers, without anything occurring worthy of mention.

 

Mr. Dupont du Nemurs, to which you directed me to afford a passage, has declined coming to America. Captain Fenwick was with him in Paris, and he will be able to inform you more fully of the particulars.

 

The ship will require a little overhauling and she will want some running rigging, and caulking, and as we have had such tempestuous weather since we have left America, that it is now a year since we have been able to paint. I could wish to land a few tons of Kentledge, as I think she will sail better, and is a more safe sea boat now than when we sailed three months previous in on leaving America.. Could it be done conveniently I beg leave to recommend giving her a new gun deck, the one she has now is so thin, that it is impossible to keep from leaking. There are also a few alterations that might be made with a trifling expense in Washington, which, I think, would improve her greatly.

 

I am happy to inform you that since our arrival, the health of our crew is re-establishing daily, out of a sick list of [illegible] on the day I left the ship for washington, 21 have recovered, and indeed a great proportion of the others, are in a state of convalescence.

 

We will require a number of men to complete our crew; the terms of service of most of those we received from the different ships in New York have expired to or three months past, or will expire shortly, we have likewise lost several by death, and four by desertion.

 

Lieutenant Blakeley has request leave of absence from the ship in consequence of indisposition, which as there are five lieutenants on board, I have granted him. He repairs to washington in the Morning.

 

Respectfully, I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, Captain Samuel Evans."

Edited November 19, 2015 by uss frolick

[uss frolick]

OK! No more dry stuff! From here, the following will be the accounts of several battles, in which the Frigate John Adams engaged, in as part of Commodore Morris's squadron battling the Tripolitan pirates. The John Adams was under the command of Captain John Rogers, and the the officer in charge of the quarter deck guns was none other than Midshipman Johnston Blakeley, who was later the Corvette John  Adam 's first lieutenant under the above recited cruise to Europe under Captain Evans ...

 

In this incident, the Frigate John Adams, in company with the Schooner Enterprize, destroys a 22 gun polacre-rigged corvette of the Tripolitan navy, a tribute gift from France, thought to have been built around 1786.

 

Report of Captain Rogers in his after action letter to Commodore Richard Morris, dated June 30th, 1803.

 

"The Squadron having this moment arrived from the coast of Tripoli, I take the earliest opportunity to inform you in what manner they were employed during your absence, and which I hope may meet you approbation, Previous from the return of the Enterprize from Malta, the John Adams was stationed to the eastward of the town, and the Adams to the westward, at such distance to enable us to distinguish each others signals, and join our operations if it had been necessary. After the Enterprize's return, she was stationed to the Eastward, and the John Adams in the center, abreast the town, and in justice of Captain [Hugh] Campbell and Lieutenant [isaac] Hull, permit me t observe that their vigilance could not be excelled, of course such as to merit your commendation, however, the enemy having only two cruisers at sea, and those in port so closely watched that nothing of importance after your departure, except the destruction of the Bashaw's finest Cruiser, for the particulars of which, I refer you to the extracts of my journal:

 

'On the 22nd instant, at 1/2 past 7 AM, wind ENE, the Town of tripoli bearing  WSW, distant 6 or 7 leagues, , observed the Enterprize in the SSE, with a signal flying, its signification not distinguishable, made sail and stood toward her, at 8 ditto spoke the Enterprize, spoke the Enterprize when  Lieutenant Hull informed me that the large ship of the enemy had anchored close in with the shore., at 1/2 past eight ditto,  shortened sail and prepared to anchor with springs on our cable, discovering the enemy anchored with springs on his cables in a deep narrow bay, about 7 or 8 leagues to the eastward of town, a situation advantageous to defending their ship, and the same time observed the enemy gunboats beating up to their assistance, and a vast number of cavalry and armed men on the beach.. At 7 minutes before 9 AM, being in 7 fathoms water, and supposing we were in point blank shot of the enemy, commenced firing which they returned, and a constant fire was maintained for forty-five minutes, when the enemy's fire was silenced, at which instance the crew abandoned the ship in the most confused and precipitate manner, for those men as her boats could not carry, jumped overboard and swam to the shore. At this moment, being in  a 1/4 less 5 fathoms water, and the rocks appearing under our bottom in every direction round us, I thought it prudent to ware and lay the ship's head off shore, and in meantime ordered Lieutenant Hull to stand close in, as consistent with safety, and amuse the enemy on the beach, until our boats could be hoisted out to take possession. At 1/4 before 10 AM,  discovering one of the enemy's boat's returning to the ship (whilst we in the act of hoisting out our boats) [we] tacked and renewed our fire, and in a few minutes after had the satisfaction to see the enemy's colors hauled down, at the same time, firing both their broadsides, which was accompanied by the ship's blowing up with a heavy explosion which burst the hull to pieces, and forced the main and mizen masts perpendicularly into the air 150 0r 160 feet, with all the yards, shroud, stays, etc,  belonging to them, This ship was polacre-rigged mounting 22 guns, the largest cruiser belonging to Tripoli, and to appearance, a very fine vessel.

 

From the number of persons land, her crew must have consisted of more than 200 men, and from the advantageous position which she held, added to the shoal-less water outside her, she ought to have annoyed us very much, and have done very considerable damage, yet to the disgrace of Tripoli, we have received no injury. All the men which returned to the ship in the boat were blown up in her, and I have reason to believe the Captain was among that number, several men , which were wounded on the beach,  were seen to be carried off by the others, and vast numbers of others must have been killed previous to their abandoning the ship.'  

 

... The loss of [the Bashaw's] most valuable cruiser, must of course do him great injury,  and from appearances , I am in hopes that none of our merchant vessels will fall into their hand this summer.  The destruction of the aforementioned vessel, altho awful, was one of the grandest spectacles I ever beheld. After a tremendous explosion, there appeared a huge column of smoke, which a pyramid of fire darting vertically through its center, interspersed with masts, spars, sails, rigging, different parts of the hull, etc, and the vessel in an instant dashed to atoms."

Edited November 21, 2015 by uss frolick

[CharlieZardoz]

Ill provide the artistic interpretation

[druxey]

A most graphic description of a magazine explosion!

[CaptArmstrong]

Any chance of seeing a bodyplan/transom for this fine reconstructed plan? Or a version for the ship as she was razeed?

[Talos]

I need to get back to work on the JA. I haven't touched it in a while, including the razee and jackass versions.

[uss frolick]

Yea! Talos is back at his drafting table!

[CaptArmstrong]

I've been working on my reconstructive draught of the Adams as a corvette, starting from the unidentified 24 gun ship of 1799. Was looking through this thread hoping to find some spar dimensions, and was thrilled to come across the fox papers comparison ( FOX 773) of Adams, John Adams, and Boston-what an incredible resource! I'm wondering though exactly what some of the dimensions refer to, and I'm hoping someone with more familiarity with the writings of shipwrights can clarify for me:

 

1) I'm assuming that with a length on gundeck of 128' 4" and armament listed for QD & F'csle, this list is from the brief period after the Adams was lengthened, but before she had her upperworks armament removed and bulwarks cut down? 

 

2) Ports fore and aft (and up & down) in the clear:  clearly too small to be the distance between ports-is this the width and height of the gunports themselves? 

 

3) What point is 'forward' mentioned in "Center of fore mast from forward"  etc? Is it likelythe the fore part of rabbet of the stem used to measure the length on gundeck? 

 

4) What is referred to with the two lines after 'number of gun/berth deck beams" with "ditto sided/moulded"?

 

Thanks to anyone who can illuminate even a little bit about the above!

[uss frolick]

1. The list was compiled before the Adams was lengthened, c. 1807, I believe, as she would have been awfully short else wise! The Essex was rebuilt in 1807-9, and the Adams was begun before she was completed, according to the correspondence on the former.

 

2. This was the width of the gunports, which ought to have corresponded to the 12-pounders she carried early in her career.

 

3. The 'forward' was the 'forward perpendicular', i.e., the rabbet, as you state, at the level of the gun-deck.

 

4. The total number of the Adams' beams at that deck level, and each's cross-sectional dimensions.

 

Was the Adams built to a Fox design, or a Humphries design? I always thought the latter, as a possible reduced New York, but I believe the question has not been settled.

 

Wait until Talos wakes up and has had his coffee. He's sure to know, if anyone does.

 

 

[CaptArmstrong]

Thanks Frolick, that was mighty quick! 

 

1. Ahhh, this makes much more sense! I wrote down 113' on gundeck for the Adams from Chapelle the other day, but he must've subtracted 15' from the ~128' assuming that was the lengthened dimension, when he actually should've added 15 for the corvette version to get 143' 4". 

2.  Perfect! I reckon I should use the gunport dimensions from the Philadelphia, Chesapeake, or New York to get the sizing right for 18-pounders. 

3. That makes it simple enough!

4. I think I see, would moulded be the vertical dimension and sided the horizontal?

 

I can't say I know whether she was closer to Fox or Humphreys' designs-she may have been an independent one like Essex. I'm certainly hoping so, given the design I'm using as a basis. Given that he definitely designed the John Adams at the same time, and her dimensions differ from the Adams just about as much as the Boston, I would doubt she was designed by fox.  It was also said that she was too fine-lined for her original rate, and more than any other US navy designer of the time fox seems to have preferred marked knuckles amidships like British and French designs, resulting in a full & somewhat hexagonal midship section (as opposed to the high-deadrise V shape of the Essex, or almost-v of the Humphreys Frigates)  Hopefully Talos can shed more light!

[uss frolick]

You might want to contact the Peabody and Essex Museum in Salem, MA, for additional information about the Adams. They hold the Josiah Fox Papers in their collections, and all of his correspondence has been helpfully typed out, and sorted by individual ship.

 

The vertical beam measurements are usually the larger of the two.

 

113 feet could have been her length of keel measurement?

[CharlieZardoz]

Hi all! Just for fun I thought I'd add the plan in question.

[Talos]

2 hours ago, CharlieZardoz said:

Hi all! Just for fun I thought I'd add the plan in question.

Wait, that's supposed to be the Adams? It seems rather small for that, 106' LBP and only 20 guns...

 

I've always thought it was a neat plan though. Like an American equivalent to a British post ship. The details also remind me of those of the John Adams. Chapelle describes the plan as being lost after he copied it, I wonder if it's since been found again.

 

 

[uss frolick]

I always wondered if the above unidentified 20-gunner might not have been the USS Merrimack of 1798, since her body plan and profile kinda resembles the Essex, and William Hackett built both ships a year apart. Few dimensions survive for the Merrimack, if I recall correctly.

[Talos]

It's entirely possible. I'll throw together a comparison of their lines later. I should note that Silverstone rates Merrimack as a 24-gunner, with a 9-pdr main battery of 20 guns and 8 x 6-pdrs on the quarterdeck/forecastle. Both could fit that ship.

 

EDIT: The 460 ton figure Silverstone gives for Merrimack are also similar to RN 20-gun ships in Winfield like the Sphinx class of 1773.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Talos

[CaptArmstrong]

It's definitely not the Adams! But I am using it as a starting point for a conjectural draught of how the Adams could've looked as a corvette. do you know if the as-built length on gundeck of the Adams was 113' as Chapelle suggests, or the undated 128'4" noted in the fox papers? I agree that the Merrimack or an improved Maryland/Patapsco are likely subjects of the plan of the 6th rate.

Edited January 6, 2018 by CaptArmstrong

[CharlieZardoz]

And here is Maryland/Patapsco.  I imagine many of the smaller ships we lack plans for looked somewhat like these but as to their unique variations I wouldn't know where to begin.

[Talos]

12 minutes ago, CharlieZardoz said:

And here is Maryland/Patapsco.  I imagine many of the smaller ships we lack plans for looked somewhat like these but as to their unique variations I wouldn't know where to begin.

That plan's always been a weird one. It's basically a merchant-style vessel (but much more heavily-armed) with that unarmed cargo deck and the quarterdeck cabin mounted like that. Really is an oddball in Chapelle's book.

[CharlieZardoz]

I suspect she was a purchase and then the upper works would have probably been closed up and she would have looked more like a proper sloop. That is for the 2+ years she was in service

[CaptArmstrong]

And the lines look very much like a fuller version of the 6th rate....would not be at all surprised if they had the same designer. With 18 ports she could plausibly be the Trumbull? If any of the vessels built for the navy at all-being a purchase certainly seems possible!

Edited January 6, 2018 by CaptArmstrong

[uss frolick]

She is unusual in that her gun-ports are above the level above the quarter galleries, instead of at that level, which would never have been done in a naval-built vessel, but was seen on paintings of merchant ships at the time. I think that the above "18-gun ship" was a merchantman with good sailing qualities that the navy was considering purchasing. Had they done so, ports would have been cut at the gun deck level, to lower the center of gravity, and those above would have been removed. On many merchant ships, cargo would have been stowed at the level of a naval ship's lower gun-deck.

 

I getting sick of writing 'gundeck' and having auto-correct substitute 'gunlock'!

Edited January 6, 2018 by uss frolick

[Talos]

3 hours ago, uss frolick said:

She is unusual in that her gun-ports are above the level above the quarter galleries, instead of at that level, which would never have been done in a naval-built vessel, but was seen on paintings of merchant ships at the time. I think that the above "18-gun ship" was a merchantman with good sailing qualities that the navy was considering purchasing. Had they done so, ports would have been cut at the gun deck level, to lower the center of gravity, and those above would have been removed. On many merchant ships, cargo would have been stowed at the level of a naval ship's lower gun-deck.

 

I getting sick of writing 'gundeck' and having auto-correct substitute 'gunlock'!

I don't think they could mount them on the gundeck. That would be just above the water line and way too close to open in any kind of weather. I think if purchased it would more likely get the sides built-up and used as an open-decked sloop like the aforementioned Maryland and Patapsco. That whole raised/sunken quarterdeck cabin thing, where it is in between the main deck and gun deck, is so merchant-y too. Not a typical warship and an enigma.

[CharlieZardoz]

Well guys from what I read most of these ships were considered slow and had poor serviceability. They were ultimately a placeholder before the better subscription frigates and schooner/brig/sloops took over. A hodgepodge navy of strange ships that were ineffective so I doubt they wasted too much time trying to modify them.

[West2Mark]

I am working on reconstructing the deck plans of the Boston and John Adams, and frolick, your posts suggest you may have some resources towards that goal? I wonder if you could share an image of the deck plans of John Adams you mention from the PEM, and any more thoughts you have about reconstructing the deck(s) of the Boston per post 15 above?

Did Talos ever finish his reconstruction of JA?

-Mark
 

[Talos]

On 5/14/2020 at 12:03 PM, West2Mark said:

I am working on reconstructing the deck plans of the Boston and John Adams, and frolick, your posts suggest you may have some resources towards that goal? I wonder if you could share an image of the deck plans of John Adams you mention from the PEM, and any more thoughts you have about reconstructing the deck(s) of the Boston per post 15 above?

Did Talos ever finish his reconstruction of JA?

-Mark
 

 

I actually restarted it a few months ago from scratch because I switched art programs. I wasn't going to say anything until I posted the redo. Heh.