Author Topic: The U.S.S. Constitution (Read 694 times)

Holden McGroin · « **on:** June 07, 2005, 12:09:59 PM »

I just was emailed this, and with a quick check on the web, it seems to be true.

The U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) as a combat vessel carried 48,600 gallons of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. This was sufficient to last six months of sustained operations at sea. She carried no fresh water distillers.

However, let it be noted that according to her log, "On July 27, 1798, the U.S.S. Constitution sailed from Boston with a full complement of 475 officers and men, 48,600 gallons of freshwater, 7,400 cannon shot, 11,600 pounds of black powder and 79,400 gallons of rum."

Her mission: "To destroy and harass English shipping."

Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum.

Then she headed for the Azores, arriving there 12 November. She provisioned with 550 pounds of beef and 64,300 gallons of Portuguese wine. On 18 November, she set sail for England.

In the ensuing days she defeated five British men-of-war and captured and scuttled 12 English merchantmen, salvaging only the rum aboard each.

By 26 January, her powder and shot were exhausted.

Nevertheless, and though unarmed, she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde in Scotland. Her landing party captured a whiskey distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons of single malt Scotch aboard by dawn.

Then she headed home.

The U.S.S. Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February 1799, with no cannon shot, No food, No powder, NO rum, NO wine, NO whiskey and 38,600 gallons of stagnant water.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:11:37 PM »

Awsome.

AWMac · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:18:30 PM »

HaaaaaaR.....

Chairboy · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:24:43 PM »

Harr indeed, this be a bit of a sea story, me matey. When it originally made the rounds, it had the ship sailing in 1779, her wee bairns a flappin' some decades before her commissioning, yarrrrr....

JB73 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2005, 12:28:22 PM »

Harrrrrrrrr matey!

those sailing boys sure can drink ; )

fromt that account it is 252,000 gallons LMFAO

thats 1200 gallons per day or 2.5 gallons PER DAY per man

Nilsen · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2005, 01:17:48 PM »

Ane the problem with that story is....?

Rob Cashman · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2005, 01:17:58 PM »

Baloney. During 1798-1801 the USS Constitution cruised in the West Indies, "during the "Quasi-War" with France, protecting U.S. merchant shipping from French privateers. The U.S.S. CONSTITUTION did not engage in battle with any warship, but did capture/recapture several privateers and victims of privateers."

Nilsen · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2005, 01:19:16 PM »

Thanks for clearing that up Rob

Seagoon · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2005, 02:26:22 PM »

Holden, thank you for this valuable reminder as it teaches us that the insatiable US desire for capitalist gain through imperialistic aggression existed long before the Presidency of George W. Bush.

Apparently, evil bumbler President John Adams sent the so-called USS "Consitution" (note the appeal to patriotism) out to raid the peace-loving British without any legal declaration of hostilities in a thinly veiled "War for Booze,"[/i] which would no doubt be of direct benefit only to his Boston cronies like Sam Adams and the burgeoning "Tavern Industry."

To be sure, the media were co-opted to camoflage the transfer of the liquid gold to Adamsburton Inns Co. via the dissemination of the ridiculous story that "The officers and sailors of the U.S.S. Constitution drank well over 252,000 gallons of alcohol in a 7 month period" or approximately 1200 gallons a day or approximately 2.5 gallons of booze each per day (approximately 20 pints each day, 7 days a week).

I have no doubt that the night crew of the Constitution also engaged in ritual abuse of the over 2400 prisoners taken on board from the 12 scuttled merchantmen by forcing them to do salty sea-dog jigs wearing bloomers over their heads. I know because I have a blury picture of this carved on a piece of scrimshaw.

It's already been 200 years! When, O when, will there be a congressional inquiry into these abuses, where is the outrage in "Ye Washinton Poste" now!

- SEAGOON

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #9 on:** June 07, 2005, 02:48:59 PM »

You're taking this a bit too seriously Seagoon...

Originallly, I looked at only a few websites for verification, but now that I have some more time, it appears this is an urban legend, humorous, but looks like it is myth rather than history.

Nilsen · « **Reply #10 on:** June 07, 2005, 02:57:26 PM »

I still don't get it

Everyone knows sailors don't wash so the amount of water they came back with sounds about right to me

Seagoon · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2005, 03:25:26 PM »

Sorry Holden, been reading too many of the political threads on the board of late. Just kidding around. Forgot to include the

- SEAGOON

J_A_B · « **Reply #12 on:** June 07, 2005, 05:27:08 PM »

Note--I am well aware of the joking nature of the initial post

475 seems kind of high for the crew of a Frigate, even an American one. I would expect the actual crew to number around 350 or so.

J_A_B

Chairboy · « **Reply #13 on:** June 07, 2005, 05:47:48 PM »

Yeah, if Star Trek taught me anything, it's that a crew of 475 is more appropriate for a Heavy Cruiser (like the Constitution Class starship USS Enterprise).

Quite CLEARLY a Frigate (like the Miranda Class USS Reliant) would have a much smaller crew (Helloooo, they were all marooned on Ceti Alpha V, obviously there weren't that many of them, duh).

Geez, some people!

Hangtime · « **Reply #14 on:** June 07, 2005, 05:50:20 PM »

...the only thing worse than a sea-lawyer is issa kilngon sea-lawyer.