Wet, Cold, and Thoroughly Miserable
Surviving Aboard Revenue Cutters Was Challenging While Pursuing Pirates and Protecting U.S. Interests at Sea
Fall 2014, Vol. 46, No. 3
By William R. Wells II
漏 2014 by William R. Wells II
The popular historical image of the antebellum U.S. Revenue Cutter Service is one of a fast cutter chasing smugglers, slavers, and other scoundrels.
Speed remained an important quality for the cutters. 鈥淚t is indispensably necessary that the Revenue Cutters in the Service of the United States should be fast sailers, so as to enable them to overhaul any vessels they may fall in with,鈥� Treasury Secretary Samuel Ingham noted in an 1830 letter to Boston Collector of Customs David Henshaw about the construction of a 107-ton new cutter.
However, the cutters were very small and wet in the sense of taking on water from above and below. Because of tight 铿乻cal concerns within the Treasury Department, the cutters received little maintenance other than what the crew could do.
Congressional funding for them did not exist, and any monies expended on them came out of the duties or tari铿�s assessed at the individual ports. Minimal expenditures were the rule, and most individual collectors of customs overlooked maintenance of habitability for the comfort and health of those serving in them.
The U.S. Revenue Cutter Service (USRCS) was formed in 1790 at the direction of the 铿乺st treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton. The service鈥檚 job was to enforce the laws and protect U.S. maritime assets, such as merchant ships that became targets for pirates, privateers, and home-grown shipwreckers. During the War of 1812, the cutters went to war to 铿乬ht the British.
In 1915, Congress established the U.S. Coast Guard within the Treasury Department and included the Revenue Cutter Service and the Life-Saving Service. The two bureaus remained as separate in culture and tasks as they had been before passage of the law. No complete merger occurred until after World War II.
Early Cutters Posed Tight Squeeze for Crew
Cutters built in the antebellum period were 75 feet long, 20 feet wide, and an aver-age of 7 to 8 feet deep鈥攁n external, not an internal measurement. The internal depth of the hold was measured from the spar deck to the top of the keel, and few measured more than 6陆 feet. The lowest deck鈥攖he 鈥渂erth deck,鈥� or orlop deck鈥攕at 2 feet above the keel, making space below deck sparse, dark, cold, or hot depending upon the season.
A few cutter captains understood the great discomfort of the narrow con铿乶es for o铿僣ers and men alike. The poor living conditions aboard the cutters became one cause of complaint in an 1889 petition submitted by a fed-up revenue cutter o铿僣er corps asking for wholesale transfer to the Navy Department.
House of Representatives Report Number 76 of February 15, 1890, re铿俥cts this concern:
"On the other hand, the o铿僣er of the Revenue Marine has no settled home or habitation; he is, by force of circumstances, a nomad; he has two separate and distinct establishments to maintain鈥攈is temporary resting place on shipboard and the equally transitory lodgings of his wife and family on shore; he is con铿乶ed to cramped and inconvenient quarters, in which, for the most part, decent privacy is denied him; he inhabits, with a half dozen others, a room 10 feet by 18 feet鈥攈ere he must eat, sleep, perform his ablutions, receive and entertain friends, and break his daily bread with the congenial and uncongenial alike; his sleeping berth is barely big enough to contain his person; his comforts are such as he can catch as his life wears on."
Other captains raised the issue of their crew鈥檚 welfare to the local collectors. In 1828, Capt. Samuel Trevett, commanding the cutter Search at Boston, recommended the installation of an iron water tank to replace the traditional water kegs. Trevett claimed a tank 70 inches tall with sides of 52 and 40 inches could hold as much water as 6陆 standard 30-gallon kegs. The United States and British navies used these water tanks and reported that the water 鈥渒eeps sweeter and is more salubrious.鈥� The tank cost $400, held a 30-day supply of water, and at one ton, also served as a substitute for the iron ballast.
Henry A. S. Dearborn, collector at Boston, suggested to Treasury Secretary Richard Rush that removing the 鈥減ig iron鈥� ballast would make more space for the crew. No record exists of Rush鈥檚 approval of the request. Search was then eight years old and near the end of her career as a revenue cutter. However, the water tank idea went forward, and the Treasury Department installed four aboard the cutter Van Buren in 1839. The logs of 1841鈥�1842 show as much as 1,850 gallons of water could be carried.
In March 1830, Capt. John Cahoone echoed Dearborn鈥檚 space-saving suggestion; Cahoone suggested replacing the cutter 痴颈驳颈濒补苍迟鈥�s ballast stone on the berth deck to 鈥渕ake room for the addition of Stores and crew.鈥� Cahoone wanted clean iron ballast because he now had to move his four 4-pounder guns and carriages back on deck. Revenue cutters that had little need for guns鈥攕uch as Vigilant鈥攃ommonly used the guns and shot for ballast. In 1845, Van Buren held 289 pieces of kentledge (iron pigs), 384 12-pound shot, and 96 odd pieces of iron for ballast鈥攁ll of it painted white.
笔辞谤迟蝉尘辞耻迟丑鈥�s Officers Complain about Quarters
The below-decks space became more constricted with the advent of winter cruising to assist distressed vessels. On December 16, 1831, Treasury Secretary Louis McLane ordered the collector of customs at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to have the cutter Portsmouth 鈥渇urnished without delay, with such quantities of provisions, water, wood, and other necessary supplies as can be conveniently stowed in the vessel and to cruise between Cape Ann and Cape Elizabeth鈥� to assist vessels as well as ful铿乴l normal duties. McLane ordered Capt. Thomas Shaw not to return to 鈥減ort until forced to do so from stress of weather and want of supplies.鈥� This arduous and uncomfortable duty severely tasked the crew and the 11-year-old cutter, which had been built as a pilot-boat and purchased by Treasury in 1829.
The o铿僣ers straightaway complained that the Portsmouth was too small. There was no wardroom, and with a 10-foot draft, it sat low in the water, making it a 鈥渧ery wet vessel鈥� in heavy weather and uncomfortable to sail and live aboard. In 1832 Shaw wrote that the cutter鈥檚 small size required him to 鈥渃arry all provisions and part of her ballast,鈥� including four cannon, on the berth deck, which measured 3陆 feet in height and where a crew of at least 12 lived. 鈥淲ith the necessary wood, water, provisions, peoples鈥� dunnage [term for the crew] &c there is little room for much else,鈥� Shaw wrote.
Added to this were the 30 tons of ballast and the additional winter cruising supplies, which included 6 barrels of beef, 400 pounds of bread, 6 barrels of water, 50 pounds of candles, 10 pounds of tea, and 1 cord of dry hardwood.
These materials provided convenient hiding and breeding places for rats, mice, and insects. At least once a year, the captain of the cutter ordered the holds cleaned out and the hatches and openings sealed. All o铿僣ers and men moved ashore to temporary quarters and then for two days used smoke to remove the vermin.
In July 1833, Capt. Andrew Mather complained of the cabin, wardroom, staterooms, and the inadequacy for the physical needs of the o铿僣ers and crews aboard the Wolcott. Mather requested to alter the captain鈥檚 cabin and wardroom while at New Haven. The 奥辞濒肠辞迟迟鈥�s cabin, he wrote, was smaller than those of other cutters of the same type, built at the same place and at about the same time. One had a cabin two feet wider and 鈥渟omewhat longer,鈥� and another had been lengthened 鈥渇rom three to four feet.鈥�
奥辞濒肠辞迟迟鈥�s cabin, Mather added, had been constructed with no place to hang clothes or store books or other items. Therefore, he had drawers made, but the 鈥渟harpness鈥� of the cutter鈥檚 hull was such that these drawers could not be placed under his bed. Mather鈥檚 cabin had two berths, one of which he re-moved to install more storage drawers.
Solving Problems Aboard the Wolcott
Mather said that other alterations solved another problem. During the winter, the cutter o铿僣ers placed a heating stove in the wardroom (the crew forward had no heating stove). When the stove was in place, the forward gangway into the wardroom had to be closed. This meant the o铿僣ers had to use the gangway in the cabin to access the wardroom.
Mather suggested adding two feet to the wardroom forward into the trunk. That way, the wardroom gangway could be used when the winter stove was in place and relieve Mather of the annoying tramping of o铿僣ers through his cabin. Stoves were not allowed in the crew鈥檚 quarters because of the potential of 铿乺es.
In 1836 living space became a concern for the cutter Madison at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Captain Shaw, now commanding the Madison, wished to put right the 鈥渧ery great inconvenience鈥� su铿�ered by the cutter鈥檚 crewmen: 16 men and 4 boys who lived in a berth deck just three feet, seven inches high.
As a comparison, Shaw measured the height of the cutter 贬补尘颈濒迟辞苍鈥�s berth deck and found a comfortable 铿乿e feet, seven inches at maximum height. The Madison ship鈥檚 carpenter estimated it would cost $275 to lower the deck and add bulkheads and lockers for the crew.
However, replacing the ballast to accommodate a lowered deck might require additional costs. In a remarkable seven days, Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury responded with approval to lower the berth deck but did not approve the new ballast. It is unknown how Shaw was able to rearrange the old ballast, but cuttermen had learned to make do with less or what was given.
O铿僣ers鈥� quarters often contained more luxurious articles. In 1840, New Haven Collector William H. Ellis purchased for Wolcott a 鈥渉air mattress,鈥� one three-pound feather pillow, one 鈥渉air鈥� pillow, four sheets, four pillow cases, one 鈥淒ouble Comfortable [comforter],鈥� a pair of Rose Blankets, and 20 yards of 鈥�3 ply鈥� carpet and binding to make four carpets. The purchase also included 10 yards of damask-style fabric with 26 yards of silk binding to make bunk curtains hung on three brass rods and eyes.
The cutter crews made the hammocks, mess cloths, and bags from cotton canvas. In 1844, Van Buren鈥�s crew made these new items and then blackened the hammocks and mess clothes with a mixture of black paint. The paint sealed the canvas and made for easier cleaning and longer wear.
鈥淐orporeal Punishment鈥� to Discipline the Crew
Although crew comfort was a concern for some cutter captains, others in铿俰cted punishments that guaranteed discomfort. Flogging did not become an o铿僣ial form of punishment by regulation on the revenue cutters until the 1843 Rules and Regulations of the U.S. Revenue Marine (taken from U.S. Navy Regulations of the same year). Even then, the term 铿俹gging or 鈥渓ashes鈥� saw no use, but the ubiquitous 鈥渃orporeal punishment鈥� was administered, and only then by the authority of the cutter captain.
A scan of cutter logs indicates that the personal experiences of the individual captains played a large part in the choice of punishment type. Those o铿僣ers with U.S. Navy experience were more prone to use 铿俹gging, but those coming from the merchant service tended to use lesser means of physical discipline.
Causes for 铿俹gging consisted of insolence, disobedience to orders, threats toward o铿僣ers and warrant o铿僣ers, and drunkenness, and the 铿乺st three served to be most often caused by the latter. The number of lashes with the cat o鈥� nine tails numbered no more than 12. Unlike the U.S. Navy, the Revenue Cutter Service had no courts-martial system that allowed more lashes.
There were other forms of punishments, however, not speci铿乪d in the regulations.
The use of the 鈥渃olt鈥� (sometimes called the starter鈥�) was common for minor o铿�enses and for boys. The colt was a piece of manila rope spliced backwards to form a club that was one inch or less in diameter and two to three feet long.
A description of the colt is given in the testimony of Alexander Slidell Mackenzie during his 1844 court-marital. 鈥淎 colt is a piece of rope larger than a quill, and not so large as your little 铿乶ger. . . . [T]hey were punished over the clothes they happened to have on, with the exception of the jacket,鈥� he said.
Boys in common practice received 6鈥�12 strokes and, in general, not laid heavy. Use of the 鈥渞attan,鈥� a cane, was more common in the U.S. Navy, where it was used, as was the colt, for informal punishment. However, cutter service captains formalized the use of the colt. A common practice was to secure a boy or midshipman to the length of a cannon barrel, known as 鈥渒issing the Gunner鈥檚 daughter,鈥� and deliver strokes across the back.
Use of 鈥渋rons鈥� during short periods of con铿乶ement was frequently mentioned in the cutter logs. The irons consisted of single irons, hand restraints (later known as Lilly-irons), and double irons consisting of leg restraints with a sliding bar with ankle loops attached to the deck.
Despite the cruel nature of such punishments, they did not normally prevent the men on the cutters from working. Those 铿俹gged received basic treatment, but they were able to return to regular duties the next day or the same day. The small crew size of 16 men made losing one man a burden to the other crew members. Crewman in irons could be physically away from work for several days.
In May 1855, Treasury Secretary James Guthrie issued revised regulations for the USRCS. He ceased publishing the regulations as a separate volume and included them within the general regulations of the Treasury Department. Guthrie removed most of naval-like rules and reverted to the regulations of 1841. In addition, the new regulations removed all mention of 鈥渃orporeal punishment.鈥�
Prescribed punishment returned to the 1862 USRCS regulations in unspeci铿乧 and vague terms, referring to punishment 鈥渁ccording to the laws and usages of the sea service.鈥� Con铿乶ement in single irons was codi铿乪d in the USRCS regulations in 1894 and made a last appearance as an authorized punishment in 1907. The Navy abolished the use of 鈥渃on铿乶ement in irons,鈥� single or double, in 1909.
Rations for Crews Improved but 鈥淪pirits鈥� Only Weekly
One improvement in attention to the crew鈥檚 health was the 1834 removal of the 鈥渟pirits鈥� portion from the daily ration, but the daily diet of high fat and salt remained unchanged from the Revolutionary War. Because there was no national navy in existence when the Revenue Cutter Service was created in 1790, the Treasury Department followed the ration scheme of the U.S. Army. The ration was not healthy by any culinary standard. A 1792 advertisement for purchasing 1793 Army rations speci铿乪d that
The rations to be supplied are to consist of the following articles, viz.
"One pound of bread or 铿俹ur;
One pound of beef, or 戮 pound of pork;
Half a gill [four ounces] of rum, brandy or whiskey;
Per 100 rations
One quart of salt, Two quarts of vinegar, Two pounds of soap, One pound of candles."
Congress authorized the Treasury Department to contract for rations for the revenue cutters for the 铿乺st time on March 2, 1793. The individual cutter captains purchased rations locally without standard amounts. Although Congress did not authorize a federal navy in the 1794 鈥淎ct to Provide a Naval Armament,鈥� section 8 of the act contained a provision for rations:
"Sunday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half of beef, and half a pint of rice.
Monday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese.
Tuesday, one pound of bread, one pound and a half beef, and one pound of potatoes or turnips, and pudding.
Wednesday, one pound of bread, two ounces of butter, or, in lieu thereof, six ounces of molasses, four ounces of cheese, and a half pint of rice.
Thursday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half pint of peas or beans.
Friday, one pound of bread, one pound of salt 铿乻h, two ounces of butter or one gill of oil, and one pound of potatoes.
Saturday, one pound of bread, one pound of pork, half pint of peas or beans, and four ounces of cheese.
There will also be allowed, one half-pint of distilled spirits per day, or, in lieu thereof, one quart of beer per day, to each ration."
The revenue cutters began cooperating with the U.S. Navy in 1798 and adopted the naval ration in 1799. With few modi铿乧ations, this ration became the constant for the revenue cutters for decades. The 1834 USRCS regulations allowed the navy ration without the 鈥渟pirits.鈥�
This ration allowance continued into the 1894 Revenue Cutter Service regulations. Although additional food items, pickles, dried raisins, and cranberries are included during the 1840s, the basic weekly menu did not vary much from that of the late 18th century.
A Health Care Plan Mandatory for Crew
The health of the crew was important, and crews spent many hours a week cleaning the 鈥渂erth deck.鈥� A ship鈥檚 requisitions record the purchase of 12 to 18 hickory or corn brooms. However, the living conditions, in-adequate diet, and hard labor for both o铿僣ers and seamen often produced long-lasting illness and disease.
By law, each man paid a tax, or fee, of 20 cents a month for individual health care at the marine hospitals, but these hospitals were few and distant from the cutter鈥檚 locations. The cutters carried neither surgeon nor surgeon鈥檚 mate, and whatever treatments and remedies used came from the cutter鈥檚 allowed medicine chest.
If a man became too incapacitated to serve, the captain discharged him. Such was the case in 1844 with the cook, James Murphy, aboard the cutter Crawford at Savannah, Georgia. Murphy鈥檚 rheumatism could not be treated with patent medicines. Hired slave Linus Olmstead took his place as cook. Some illnesses proved incurable. In 1841 had four men aboard Crawford died from unspeci铿乪d fevers, and another died from yellow fever. Van Buren had one seaman die in 1845, and 1st Lt. William Norris died in 1846.
Medicine chests mirrored those of the merchant marine and contained patent medicines, many of which were alcohol-based or opiate-based, or both; others were benign and useless, while still others such as the 鈥淢ercurial Ointment鈥� were poisonous. The cutter鈥檚 o铿僣ers were as susceptible to fads in medicines as in any generation then or since. Capt. Levy C. Harby, commanding the Wolcott and stationed in Mobile, Alabama, submitted bills for replenishing the medicine chest. Treasury Secretary Robert J. Walker questioned the expenses for items not allowed in the chest and disallowed the payment. This made Harby personally responsible for payment. The doubtful items enumerated by Walker included:
"One bottle Sands Sarsaparilla, six bottles Townsend鈥檚 Sarsaparilla, One Galvanic Bracelet $1.50, One Galvanic Bracelet $3, six bottles magnesia at $1 per bottle, 2 prescriptions at 40垄. Coleman鈥檚 bitters 8, Two bottles Tonic mixture $2, Twelve boxes Seidlitz Powders $6, Six boxes Capsules 8, One bottle Syrup of Wild Cherry 8, Two bottles Lime juice 2$, Ten bottles Woods Mixture $10, 2 gallons Blue Lick water 8 and jug 4."
Walker checked contemporary books listing medicines for seagoing vessels and remarked that even if listed, they 鈥渨ould not be allowed in those of the revenue ser-vice.鈥� In December, Mobile Collector James Saunders intervened in the discussion. He asserted that his 鈥渟pecial order鈥� authorized the purchased items, adding that the largest outlay, for Dr. Wood鈥檚 Brown Mixture, was for treatment of Lt. Osmond Peters鈥檚 rheumatism. Saunders was under the impression there was no 鈥渞egulation con铿乶ing all medicines,鈥� but he noted that those procured for Wolcott he 鈥渄eemed useful in this climate.鈥� Saunders asked that the 鈥渞ejected articles鈥� be paid for because it was di铿僣ult to determine just what proportion of medicines were for which o铿僣er. Secretary Walker relented and authorized payment of the bill to the patiently waiting Mobile druggist Joseph Jackson.
The Treasury Department continued its arbitrary application of regulations and customs for habitability, rations, and various medicines and general health care and pursued whatever it deemed worthy or necessary for the revenue cutters. However, these factors, including punishments, cannot be viewed separately but as parts of the overall service culture. They all in铿倁enced how the cutters operated and maintained responsible crews.
The constant rotation of treasury secretaries and collectors of customs guaranteed the loss of any continuity for the administration of the revenue cutters for the next half century. What did continue was the near constant 铿俹w of correspondence over trivial matters, but trivial was the watchword of the Treasury Department over expenses.
The eventual result was a near revolt of the revenue cutter o铿僣ers in 1889 when they petitioned to transfer to the Navy Department, where management for o铿僣ers and men was far superior to that of the Treasury Department.
Nonetheless, the Coast Guard remained in the Treasury Department until 1967, except for temporary transfer to the Navy during World Wars I and II. In 1967, it became part of the new Department of Transportation, and in 2003 was merged into the new Department of Homeland Security.
William R. Wells II, a retired master chief petty o铿僣er, has researched and written Revenue Cutter Service history for more than 30 years. He is a former adjunct instructor of history at Augusta State University (now Georgia Regents University) at Augusta, Georgia. He has published articles in academic and popular journals and has acted as an adviser with the U.S. Coast Guard on historical subjects. The latest has been the research of the 1853 wreck of U.S. Revenue Cutter Hamilton.
Note on Sources
Archival sources used in this article are mainly drawn from the Records of the U.S. Coast Guard, Record Group (RG) 26, and Records of the U.S. Customs Service, RG 36, at the 威尼斯人娱乐场 in Washington, D.C. In addition, Letters Received by the Secretary of the Treasury from Collectors of Customs (鈥淕,鈥� 鈥淗,鈥� 鈥淚,鈥� Series), 1833鈥�1869, General Records of the Department of the Treasury, RG 56 (Micro铿乴m Publication M174), provided additional information.
The correspondence in RG 26 and RG 36 between the various cutter captains, the col-lectors of customs, and the sitting treasury secretaries provide sporadic comments about the needs and concerns toward cutter material conditions and the overall health and welfare of the o铿僣ers and men serving cutters. These logs are useful in understanding the daily routine and material culture of the revenue cutters.
The 1833 comments of Capt. Andrew Mather (RG 56, M174) of the proposed changes to the cutter Wolcott cabin and wardroom are marked in red in the original. The interesting parts of his letters involved showing the non-standardization of the cutters although built at the same place and at near same time.
The most complete information came from the logs of the cutter Van Buren, Entry 159A, RG 26. These log entries are the transcribed transcripts of reports sent to the Treasury Department. This was a requirement and was used as a check on the activities of the cutters. There was no standard for making the entries. What was included depended upon the activity of the individual captains. Some were very complete in their notations; other not so. The amount of provisions, water, punishments, desertions, the sick list, hiring, discharges, deaths, and minutia deemed necessary by the individual captain as worthy of mentioning, or perhaps justi铿乧ation, varied. Not all men were punished for infractions. It was common for deserters to return to the cutter and give a plausible ex-planation that the captain found satisfactory and persuaded him to suspend punishment. However, desertion caused by drunkenness was not tolerated.
Between 1841 and 1842, Van Buren had four captains and one 铿乺st lieutenant as acting captain. In the period between 1841 and 1842 Van Buren was under Navy control and was not particularly active in the Florida campaigns. However, this period provides details of the cutter not previously known.
The deaths of men from Van Buren are recorded in Miscellaneous Correspondence, 1841鈥�1842, August 3, 1841, Entry 155, RG 26.
William N. Brady, The Kedge Anchor, or, Young Sailor鈥檚 Assistant, 18th ed., (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872; originally published in 1847; retrieved from Google Books) is an excellent source for the description of naval life and details in the 19th century. Brady was a sailing master and had intimate knowledge of naval service that is not seen in many biographies. It is practical information that could remain of service in the present. He does explain the use of red ochre and, in turn, provides a reason the cutter Van Buren noted in one log entry that red ochre was used on the cannon and other metal parts. On the blackening of hammocks, Brady provides the procedure but not the purpose. Painting canvas can make it more durable and easier to clean.
The model for the illustration of the schooner frame was adopted with permission from in the Age of Sail Workshop (website) . Photograph of museum display from Mystic Seaport.