Stephen Decatur inspired Forester

Jetse Reijenga

I finally obtained and read a copy of C.S. Forester's Barbary Pirates. At the same time, good fortune handed me "a Rage for Glory, the life of Commodore Stephen Decatur", a recent biography written by James Tertius De Kay. Both highlight the birth of the US navy as a result of the war against the North African Pirates around 1800, and the key role played by Decatur. Both books are highly entertaining and informative in their own way.

It would be both unrealistic and unfair to compare a historical account by a "novellist and storyteller", issued in a series for pre-adolescents, with a biography by one of the foremost comtemporary naval historians. For one thing, CSF, as usual doesn't reveal his sources, whereas de Kay gives extended lists of comments, notes and references, including C.S. Forester's the Age of fighting Sail. The purpose of this contribution is to try and shed some light on Decatur as an inspiration and as a role model of characters and events in of CSF's novels.

Previous biographies of Stephen Decatur were published in as early as 1821 by Waldo and subsequently by Mackenzie, Brady, Anthony and Lewis and CSF must have had access to at least one of these at the time of writing Barbary Pirates (1952), as is evident from following citation, highlighting the Decatur character:

  • Yet in this, our last sight of Yusuf [of Tripoli], we have to accord him with some amused respect. He knew he had to yield, but of the North African rulers he alone succeeded in bargaining with Decatur in face of all Decatur.s guns. Thirty thousand dollars was the sum Decatur demanded in damages; but Yusuf beat him down to twenty-five thousand, and finally clinched the bargain by throwing in a thousand dollar's worth of slaves. We can hardly wonder that Yusuf lived on for many years after that; the man who could get the better of the bargain with Decatur in all the flush of a victory was a man capable of dealing with most problems. (Barbary Pirates, page 182)

Stephen Decatur's fame in Britain of course mainly originates from his capture of HMS Macedonian on 25 October 1812. This was extensively covered in e.g. de Kay's previous book, and in subsequent contributions in Reflections. (picture source)

Superficially, Stephen Decatur has something in common with both Horatio Hornblower and Josiah Peabody (the Captain from Connecticut). Born 3 years apart, both Decatur  and Hornblower were naval heros in the eye of the public, fighting in the same wars, albeit on different sides. Both married a woman of social standing, the former after sacking an unidentified girlfriend from his youth, the latter after the death of Maria, the landlady's daughter he married on an inpulse. Both fought in duels. But this is as far as the parallell runs, because who as a midshipman during the early 1800's has not fought a duel? Intellectually the difference in characters between Hornblower and Decatur can hardly be larger. The same difference applies to societal and political influence, Decatur enjoyed public esteem and being consulted by politicians, Hornblower was allergic to anything remotely linked to politics and politicians (the fact that Northcote Parkinson made him a member of the house of lords to me seems to be a case of unwarrented extrapolation). Decatur and Peabody were flamboyant personalities, Hornblower a complex one.

Life in a blockading fleet is an essential part of the Hornblower series. The Decatur biography on the other hand, provides good insight into the frustrations of a US navy, blockaded by the British around 1812. Decatur, landlocked with his vessel the United States in the harbor of New London and under the protection of its two forts, even went as far as attempting to kidnap and hold for ransom the commanding officer of the blockading squadron, Sir Thomas Hardy, who was in the habit to dine ashore with an American friend. Another idea by Decatur implied a 2+2 ship duel with the British, in order to get the blockade lifted. The idea was not persued, but can it be a coincidence that Forester actually used it in the final chapters of "Captain from Connecticut"? The duel between USS Delaware and HMS Calypso (captain Davenant), was aborted by the announcement of peace.

Duelling apparently was very much part of the life of officer's ranks in the early 19th century. In Forester's novels it plays a minor role: in The Even Chance (Mr. Midshipman Hornblower) and a Captain from Connecticut. Both duels were actually sabotaged in identical fashion, by the Horatio's captain and by Joshua's wife Anne de Breuil respectively. Yet another aborted duel. The Decatur-Peabody link has been previously treated in Reflections by David Stead, mentioning parallells and conflicting time schedules compared to historical events. It is interesting to note that Sanford Sternlicht gives two examples where in his opinion the story of the Captain from Connecticut looses credibility: the duel sabotaged by his wife, and the ship's duel at the end of the book, the latter ingredient likely to have been inspired by Stephen Decatur's life. Admittedly, both a matter of personal opinion. It makes me wonder the expression "reality is often more fantastic than imagination" and conclude that Forester is at his best using fiction in a realistic context, rather than using a copy from reality amidst imaginary circumstances.  

Regarding CSF's opinion of duelling, and the minor role it played in his novels, I think it can best be summarized by citing HMS Justinian's Captain Keene in the Even Chance (Mr. Midshipman Hornblower):

  • Now here is some gratuitous advise......never fight another [duel]. Some people, oddly enough, acquire a taste for duelling, as a tiger acquires a taste for blood. They are never good officers, and never popular ones either. (page 38)

In case of doubt, add to this the following understatement from the Captain from Connecticut:

  • His uncle Josiah, two months later, paid the penalty for having become a gentleman, and died in Baltimore twelve paces from the pistol of another gentleman who had been his friend until the sudden disclosure of a queer scandal.....(page 14)

De Kay's biography on the other hand, details duelling practice around 1800 in quite some interesting detail. Having fought a duel in his early years, Decatur as a junior lieutenant introduced into the new US navy the "Decatur Plan". The ruling required all midshipmen under his command to pledge themselves to neither give nor accept a challenge to a duel without previously reporting their disputes to him and allowing him the opportunity to find some means of resolving the argument and cooling their hot tempers. The ruling, adopted by most other ship's captains undoubtedly saved many lives. It is therefore nothing short of bizarre that Decatur himself should be killed in a duel at the early age of 41. The detailed description of the preceeding chain of events alone, starting as early as 1807, is sufficient reason to read de Kay's book.

As mentioned, Decatur's live has been widely documented in ealier biographies, to which Forester must have had access. He may even have read that Decatur's wife Susan had deliberately been kept ignorant of her husband's acceptance of the duel. Soon after day break on March 22, 1820, Decatur sneaked out of his house on President's Square without notifying his wife, only to return at breakfast, mortally wounded and dying. Anne de Breuil saved her husband's life through sabotage and it is a matter of pure speculation whether Susan Decatur would have done the same, had she known. 

Another interesting series of events in Decatur's life is worth mentioning, because it relates to the system of prize money (or lack thereof) in the US navy. On October 31, 1808, the USS philadepphia, captain William Bainbridge ran aground on the Kaliusa reef at Tripoli. The ship was taken by the Tripolitans and her crew taken prisoner. Both Barbary Pirates and the Decatur Biography describe this to some detail, including the fact that after considerable deliberation the Americans decided to burn and destroy the Philadelphia rather than waging a risky attempt at re-capture. Decatur managed to perform this daring feat while under overwhelming enemy fire and without any loss of life.

USS Philadelphia run aground (left) by William Bainbridge in November 1803 and set on fire (right) by Stephen Decatur on 16 Febuary 1804 in Tripoli harbour.

What surprises me is that Decatur was convinced of his right of prize money. He pleaded and campained for years in order to obtain it (and after his death: so did his widow), but congress never yielded. It seems that Dekay tends to agree with Decatur's claim. After re-reading the whole Hormblower series, and assuming Forester was well informed on this point, it must be concluded that the American system of prize money may have been similar, but was heavily disputed in the US navy and American society, surely more so than in Britain. Again in 1812, Decatur had a hard bargain in negotiating prize money for the Macedonian. Still, I am surprised about Decatur's conviction regarding the Philadelphia, although critics are free to use the dialectic argument that I should read Richard Hill's the Prizes of War first. I am sure I will, some day.

Further reading: next to deKay's biography discussed above, other recent biographies of Stephen Decatur have been published by Birindelli, Tucker and Allison. 

References