Washington Navy Yard Purser, Samuel Hanson USN, brings charges
against Captain Thomas Tingey and Master Commandant John Cassin 10 Dec 1808
by John G. M. Sharp
On Saturday 10 December 1808, Secretary of the Navy, Robert Smith, (1757-1842) ordered a Court of Naval Inquiry to hear "sundry allegations" made by Samuel Hanson (1752-1830), the Washington Navy Yard’s purser, against Captain Thomas Tingey (1750-1829) and his deputy Master Commandant, John Cassin (1760-1822).1, 2 Hanson’s charges were serious, namely that Tingey had financially benefited from shipbuilding and lumber contracts. He also accused both Tingey and Cassin of profiting by placing enslaved laborers of their families and friends on shipyard payrolls. During their tenure at Washington Navy Yard, both Tingey and Cassin were strong advocates for enslaved labor.3 This paper explores the charges Samuel Hanson made against Tingey and Cassin, namely that they profit from enslaved labor and compares it to the May 1808 Washington Navy Yard muster roll.
1. Navy Court Martial Records and Court of Inquiry, 1799-1867, re Thomas Tingey, 10 Dec 1808, Volume 2, Page 21, Case number 55, Case Range, 30-74, Year Range 16 Oct 1805 to 16 Jan 1810, Roll 0004, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington DC, hereafter Inquiry.
2. Samuel Hanson of Samuel was Hanson full name. He is referred to both as Samuel Hanson and Samuel Hanson of Samuel in much of the official Navy correspondence. For simplicity I have referred to him as Samuel Hanson, unless quoting others.
3. Brown, Gordon S. The Captain Who Burned His Ships: Captain Thomas Tingey, USN, 1750 -1829, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis Maryland, 2011, p. 75.
Robert Smith 1757-1842By 1808 Robert Smith letters to Thomas Tingey reflect growing concern about the practice of placing enslaved persons on the Navy Yard payroll. Smith’s queries established Tingey, Cassin and other naval officers were supplementing their pay by drawing the wages and rations of their enslaved "servants "who appeared on the Navy payrolls as "Ordinary Seaman." Tingey’s, 19 May 1808, response to Smith documented there was a total of 194 employees in the Washington Navy Yard and "in ordinary", with 58 enslaved Blacks or 29.9% of the workforce.4
4. Tingey to Smith, 19 May 1808, Letters Received from Captains (Captains letters), 1808, Volume 11, Apr 1808 to 28 Jun 1808, Letter 75, pp 1-2, Roll 0011, M125, RG 260, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.
12 May 1808 list of slaves and slaveholders5
(double click for clarity)
5. Tingey to Smith, 12 May 1808, Letters Received from Captains (Captains letters), 1808, Volume 11, Apr 1808 to 28 Jun 1808, Letter 68, pp 1-2, Roll 0011, M125, RG 260, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.
Samuel Hanson’s allegations against Thomas Tingey and his deputy John Cassin were long thought lost.6 Recently however, while working on a second edition of my African Americans, Enslaved & Free, at Washington Navy Yard, I found a long overlooked file of an 1808 Court of Naval Inquiry. In this file, Hanson made accusations about both officers profiting from naval repair contracts and others about the employment of enslaved labor.7
6. Brown, p. 65.
7. Sharp, John G. M., African Americans, Enslaved & Free, at Washington Navy Yard, http://www.usgwarchives.net/va/portsmouth/shipyard/sharptoc/wny2.html
Captain Thomas Tingey 1806 & Master Commandant John Cassin 1806
Samuel Hanson was the Washington Navy Yard’s purser from 1804 to 1810. These six years put Hanson in a unique position as purser, and slaveholder gave him an intimate knowledge of how the shipyard recruited, employed and profited from enslaved labor. Moreover, as a Naval Purser, he was "the money man" responsible for paying the Yard’s officers and men. In Christopher McKee’s words, naval pursers were "the people behind the ledgers." At the Washington Navy Yard, Hanson and his subordinates kept the muster books, muster rolls and prepared the payrolls. In addition, he was responsible for insuring the shipyard’s large workforce was accurately and properly paid.8
8. McKee, Christopher A Gentlemanly and Honorable Profession: The Creation of the U.S. Naval Officer Corps, 1794-1815, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1991), pp. 350-351.
Hanson’s position was lucrative, for a naval purser was "the man who stood to make the most from his profession".9 One of Hanson’s major responsibilities as purser was to sell basic essentials under the generic name "Slops". Slops included clothing such as blue trousers, handkerchiefs, flannel shirts, cotton stockings and shoes. Other less essential but useful items were small knives, razors, combs, tin pots and spoons. Lastly, the purser sold some non-essentials such as tobacco, mustard, pepper, sugar and chocolate. He also carried a supply of fine shirts and fancy ribbons for going ashore. Hanson, by 1809, was allowed a reasonable profit. Clothing, for instance 5% markup, coffee, tea, sugar and tobacco were labeled as luxuries and consequently the purser was allowed to charge a 50% markup. Toilet articles, utensils, knives and ribbons were marked up to 25%.10
9. McKee, p. 355.
10. McKee, pp. 359-361.
Samuel Hanson of Samuel (1752-1830) was born into a wealthy slaveholding and influential family in Port Tobacco Parish, Charles County, Virginia.11 His social circle included Thomas Jefferson who he corresponded with frequently.12 During the American Revolution, Hanson served as a Lieutenant Colonel, Charles County Militia, 1776-1778. He was often mentioned as "Colonel Hanson" in correspondence and newspaper accounts. Hanson was a member of the General Assembly of Maryland from 1781 to 1784. He moved in 1787 to Alexandria, Virginia, where he received an appointment as surveyor in 1789. In the 1780s George Washington’s nephews Lawrence Augustine Washington and George Steptoe Washington boarded with Hanson in Alexandria. Hanson told Washington on Monday, 4 August when he was in Alexandria, of his intention to punish Lawrence Washington with a whipping.13
11. Obituary, Colonel Samuel Hanson of Samuel, Daily National Journal, (Washington, District of Columbia ), 17 December 1830, p. 3.
12. Hanson to Jefferson, 8 August 1801," Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-35-02-0036.
13. George Washington to Hanson 23 July 1797, The Papers of George Washington, Retirement Series, vol., 1, 4 March 1797 to 30 December 1797, editor. W. W. Abbot, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998), pp. 267–268.
He resigned that position in 1793 following a dispute with the collector Charles Lee and then served for the next eight years as cashier of the Bank of Columbia. During this period, he also edited two Georgetown newspapers. Hanson was reported dismissed from this position at the bank "for appropriating a large sum of stockholders money."14 Hanson himself, in a notice in the National Intelligencer on 23 September 1801, stated he was dismissed from the service of the Bank of Columbia without reason.15 In 1801 he received a "midnight appointment" as notary public for Washington from President John Adams.16
14. Stephen R. Bradley: Letters of a Revolutionary War Patriot and Vermont Senator, editor, Dorr Bradley Carpenter, McFarland and Company, (Jefferson, North Carolina, 2009), p. 200
15. Howe, Charles E. "The Financial Institutions of Washington City in Its Early Days." Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., vol. 8, 1905, p. 11. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40066898. Accessed 10 July 2023
16. Archives of Maryland, Samuel Hanson of Samuel (ca. 1752-1830), MSA SC 3520-592
https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc3500/sc3520/000500/000592/html/00592bio.htmlHanson subsequently solicited employment from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and in 1804 finally received the coveted position of purser at the Washington Navy Yard. Hanson needed the job because his personal finances had deteriorated. On 10 March 1804, he wrote to Thomas Jefferson and explained his financial circumstances.
Thus, for the support of a family, amounting to the number of twelve, I have to depend entirely on my Salary, at the War-Office, of 1000$. My economy is extreme. Scarcely an article, exclusive of the necessaries of life, in a strict acceptation of that term, enters into the composition of my expenses. Yet it is not in my power to eke out my Salary to the end of the quarter.17
17. Hanson to Jefferson, 10 March 1804, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 42, 16 November 1803 to 10 March 1804, ed. James P. McClure. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016, pp. 614-616.
On 30 March 1804, with Thomas Jefferson’s support, Hanson was appointed Purser USN where he served until his dismissal in 1810.18 At the time of his appointment Hanson was fifty two years of age, considerably older than most newly appointed pursers whose typical median age was twenty seven.19 Hanson was well educated; he read both Latin and Greek and exchanged puns in Latin with Navy Yard Architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe (1764-1820).20
18. Hanson to Jefferson 3 October 1804, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol, 44, 1 July to 10 November 1804, editor. James P. McClure, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), p. 474
19. McKee, p.494, Table 34
20. The Papers of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers 1805 -1810,
John C. Van Horne, editor (Maryland Historical Society, Yale University Press, New Haven), p. 683In late 1808 Samuel Hanson wrote to Secretary of the Navy, Robert Smith, to demand a public investigation into the official conduct and alleged misdemeanors of Commodore Thomas Tingey and Master Commandant John Cassin. An angry Tingey proclaimed his ardent desire to clear his name, and likewise demanded a public inquiry into Hanson’s conduct and activities as purser for the Navy Yard.21
21. Brown, p. 65.
A frustrated Smith, wrote to remind all three men:
Whatever accusations you may have against any officer or officers of the Navy Yard at Washington, you will further with exhibits of the same with the necessary evidence in support thereof, in order that the whole might be submitted to the consideration of the President.22
22. Robert Smith, Circular Letter to Thomas Tingey, John Cassin and Samuel Hanson, 17 September 1808, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, Letters, 1808, p. 45, Roll 0175, RG 45, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington DC.
On 20 October 1808, Hanson wrote Jefferson, to confirm the charges were delivered to Smith, but he suspected "an arrangement had taken place at the Navy Yard by operator, of which the charges may not be delivered to you through the medium of the Secretary for many weeks to come."23
23. Samuel Hanson to Thomas Jefferson, 20 October 1808, retrieved from the Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib019199/
After looking over the respective allegations of Hanson, Tingey and Cassin, Smith in dismay wrote to President Thomas Jefferson on 3 November 1808, "The accompanying papers exhibit the melancholy remark of Erasmus, "Homo homini lupusest" (Man is wolf to man.).24 Jefferson responded to Hanson’s accusations that a Navy Yard Company of 60 workers had threatened wealthy Federalist William Prout by parading outside his home loudly accompanied by barrel of tar. Jefferson quickly wrote General Henry Dearborn, forwarding Hanson’s complaint, and directed:
"These officers should be warned that the Executive cannot tamely look on & see its officers threaten to become the violators instead of the protectors of the rights of our citizens. I presume, however, that all that is necessary will be that their commanding officer (General Mason) finding the fact true, should give them a private admonition, either written or verbal, as he pleases, to withdraw themselves from the illegal association."25
24. Robert Smith to Thomas Jefferson, 3 November 1808, retrieved from the Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib019273/
25. Thomas Jefferson to Henry Dearborn, 5 November 1808, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Daniel Parker Papers.
Robert Smith, a former lawyer, was a close reader and neither he nor Thomas Jefferson wanted the publicly an inquiry would engender.26 They need not have worried for none of the local newspapers carried any mention of the proposed Inquiry nor are there any notations in the file that Court of Inquiry ever met.27
26. Brown, p. 65.
27. The leading newspaper in the District of Columbia, The National Intelligencer was friendly to Thomas Tingey and supported the Jefferson administration. They carried no mention of the proposed 1808 Inquiry. Only the Boston based New England Palladium (Boston, MA) 30 Dec 1808, Columbia Centinel (Boston, MA) 31 Dec 1808 and New York Evening Post (New York, New York) 23 Dec 1808 carried news of the Inquiry "into the conduct of Captain Tingey and Cassin, for having their own private work done at the public expense."
As for Samuel Hanson, he lingered until 21 March 1810 when the new Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton wrote him that he was
revoking your appointment for having exhibited charges most of which were found after tedious investigation to be frivolous and groundless, some of them malicious and the rest of them of such a nature as not to be entitled to the notice of the government and for having unnecessarily occasioned great expense to the public, but some considerations encouraged me to hope you might be quiet and that should be saved the pain of a measure which you have at last ordered unavoidable, as such, I am to inform you that your services are no longer required at the Navy Yard.28
28. Paul Hamilton to Samuel Hanson, Letters, 15 March 1810, p. 18, Roll 18, Miscellaneous Records of the Navy Department, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.
From the beginning of his tenure at the Navy Yard, Samuel Hanson had clashed with Captain Thomas Tingey and John Cassin. His letters reflect he was given to vociferous demands and hyperbole.
For example, Hanson alleged, that WNY Naval Storekeeper, Buller Cocke, became "the Secret Partner of Joseph Cassin." He further alleged,
The rapacious encroachment on my privilege – my Only One, Made more reprehensible in Mr. Cocke on account of the great difference in our respective salaries; His 1500 $ per annum, mine, 624. His duties so easy that he has leisure to engage as he desires in extensive and profitable private pursuit. Mine, so severe, that I have not an hour to spare from the discharge of them.29
29. Inquiry, Tingey, p. 23.
He further asserted, "the system adopted at this place by the commandants is system of terror, patronage, favoritism, peculation and despotism." While Hanson was a supporter of Jefferson and Madison, he remained extremely critical of Tingey and Cassin. His letters clearly express his contempt for both men, who he alleged, had "reduced the workmen to a state of complete vassalage."
Tingey and Cassin both expected obedience and deference from subordinates. Hanson, from a privileged background, considered himself outside military chain of command. His social circle was such that he could appeal directly to the President and the Secretary of the Navy with impunity and did so frequently. His family and social background are evident in his opening statement, and provide some idea of his financial concerns and political attitude. He was a slaveholder but remained critical of the way enslaved labor benefited "the Favorites" officers like Thomas Tingey, John Cassin, Joseph Cassin and Nathaniel Harriden at the Navy Yard.
Hanson’s pointed denunciations to Smith, however, regarding Tingey and Cassin’s nepotism and favoritism hit their mark. In fact, Smith had known for some time that many of these charges were true and was clearly concerned. In May 1808 Smith demanded Tingey provide a complete muster roll showing all employees on the payroll. Tingey’s reluctant response to Smith of 19 May 1808 with the requested muster for May did nothing to reassure Smith.
The document simply confirmed Smith’s suspicions. There he found Captain Tingey had placed his enslaved servant Abraham Lynson, on the muster roll as a seaman. Likewise, his deputy Master Commandant, John Cassin, had his enslaved "servant" Charles Lancaster enrolled as an Ordinary Seaman.
The complete 1808 muster illustrated that such slave rentals were lucrative and documented that Tingey, Cassin and other Washington Navy Yard officers were supplementing their pay by drawing the wages and rations of their enslaved "servants". Tingey’s reply also enumerated an additional 52 people, including fifteen more enslaved individuals, ten of whom were owned by naval officers including Seaman Abraham Lynson, the Commodore’s personal "servant." Other records confirm that Lynson was in fact an enslaved "servant’ on 19 May 1808.30
30. District of Columbia Archives, Manumission: Thomas Tingey, to Abraham (Lynson) Location: Liber, W No. 22, dated 21 July 1809, (pages new 146-147).
While he laments the abuse of the contracting system, Hanson’s compassion, if we may call it that, is solely reserved for a “poor widow’, a white slaveholder, whom he charged Tingey and Cassin had abused with “shameful partiality and injustice in allowing a poor widow woman no more than 50 cents each for the 2 Negroes employed in the Yard, though others, not better entitled receive 75 cents per day and though the poor woman has frequently remonstrated with him on the injustice of his conduct.” This particular case may be that Sarah Washington, whom on the May 1808 muster is enumerated as a slaveholder receiving the wages of two enslaved brothers working in the blacksmith shop they were Joe and Dick Washington. Yet another possibility is the widow of Commodore Samuel Smallwood who’s received the wages for two enslaved grindstone turners. They were Henry and Hezekiah Smallwood. The widow Washington drew 75 cents per diem, for each of the brothers.
Samuel Hanson need not have worried, despite warning to Captain Tingey, such as this one from 1815 employing the enslaved for benefit of widows and orphans continued.
It is the intention of the Board of the Navy Commissioners, to reestablish the Navy Yard at this place as a building Yard only, & while stating to you this intention, it may not be improper for them to make you acquainted with their views generally with respect to the establishment. They have witnessed in many of our Navy Yards & this particular pressure in the employment of characters unsuited for the public service – maimed & unmanageable slaves for the accommodation of distressed widows & orphans & indigent families - apprentices for the accommodation of their masters – & old men & children for the benefit of their families & parents. These practices must cease – none must be employed but for the advantage of the public, & this Yard instead of rendering the navy odious to the nation from the scenes of want & extravagance which it has too long exhibited must serve as a model on which to perfect a general system of economy. In making to you,- Sir, these remarks the Navy Commissioners are aware that you have with themselves long witnessed the evils of which they complain, & which every countenance will be given to assist you in remedying them, they calculate with confidence on a disposition on your part to forward the public interests.*
* Source: Board of Navy Commissioners to Thomas Tingey, 11 May 1815, NARA RG E307 v. 1.
Link: May 1808 WNY Muster Roll, # 37 C. Lancaster enslaved to Cassin # 38 A. Lynson enslaved to Tingey
Hanson’s allegation (p.27) as to how enslaved labor was procured from slaveholders in the countryside and operated at the Navy yard is unique. Moreover, in his letters to Robert Smith, he charged naval officers profit both from the slaveholder and later from the enslaved worker.
Tingey and Cassin both believed enslaved labor was essential to the Navy Yard since they claimed white men would not take certain jobs such as blacksmith striker or ship caulker. On 18 May 1808, John Cassin wrote Smith "Understanding it is the intention of the Secretary of the Navy to discharge all Slaves employed in this Yard, I beg leave to show there are but very few white men in this Neighborhood that can be found to fill the places even for one-fourth higher wages."3131. John Cassin to Robert Smith, 18 May 1808 Record Group 45, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.
Tingey, taking a different approach, cited the custom of the service and implored Smith to reconsider his ban.
It is well known to be established custom, that whenever an officer has been ordered on duty - so, as to give him32 the command of men, entered on the muster roll for pay &c said officer hath invariably entered thereon one or two at least of his own servants or taken such servants from the men so entered - It would appear then Sir - singular and tend to excite unpleasant feelings, were myself and the Officers under my command at this place, to be the only exceptions to the customary indulgence - an indulgence also common to every officer in the Military and Marine service and generally in number according to Rank. It is therefore hoped with submission by myself and Officers attached to this yard, that you would please to take this matter into consideration - and sanction to us the indulgence common to all our brother officers here to be allowed service and the quantum to each.33
32. Tingey to Smith 19 May 1808.
33. Tingey to Smith, 19 May 1808, letter 75, p. 1.
Upon reading this, Smith’s reply was scathing, "Thus the Indulgence (for there is no other name by which it can be called) asked is sanctioned neither by the usages in the army, navy, or marine corps -"34
34. Tingey to Smith 19 May 1808, letter 75, pp. 6-7. Robert Smith often drafted responses and attached them to an officer’s letter. Typically these drafts were given to his clerk to be put in the smooth, although, it is quite possible he may have chosen to speak with Tingey privately as his office was just a mile from the Navy Yard gates. Throughout Smith’s long tenure he met frequently with Tingey on social and business occasions.
In the end, Robert Smith must have felt Hanson’s charges were simply too embarrassing for the Jefferson administration and the Department of the Navy to air in a public inquiry, hence, the case was never brought to court. Hanson’s charges were simply left to fade in the file and no action was taken against Tingey, Cassin or Hanson. Despite official denial, enslaved labor continued at the navy yard and at other locations. The so called "gentlemen’s agreement" persisted, and slaves were stealthily hired and placed on the books as freemen. From court records and the observations of visitors in the 1840’s and 1850’s, enslaved laborers continued to work in the blacksmith shop.35
35. Sharp, John G. M., African Americans, Enslaved & Free, at Washington Navy Yard, http://www.usgwarchives.net/va/portsmouth/shipyard/sharptoc/wny2.html
Transcription: One reason the records of the 1808 Court of Inquiry concerning Thomas Tingey, John Cassin and Samuel Hanson were long overlooked is their confusing pagination and puzzling interfiling of entirely different court cases. For example, the opening page authorizing a Court of Inquiry only begins at page 21. The first pages 1 and 2 are documents from WNY Overseer of the Laborers, David Dobbins, signed 29 October 1808, which recount the posting of notice of a meeting of the Navy Yard workers in the Tar and Feathers episode. Pages 3 and 4 are from an entirely different inquiry, that of Captain James Barron dated 24 February 1808.
This transcription is mainly from digital images of Samuel Hanson’s letters to the Secretary of the Navy and of documents and memoranda that Tingey, Cassin and others produced for the proposed 1808 Naval Court of Inquiry. These were transcribed from Case number 55, Records of General Courts Martial and Courts of Inquiry of the Navy Department, 1799-1867. The originals are located in the National Archives and Records Administration Washington D.C. This is a partial transcription that includes much of Samuel Hanson’s prologue and some of his specific charges and concerns regarding the placing of enslaved laborers on the shipyard payrolls. For readers who want to examine the original documents, I have placed the specific page numbers in bold brackets e.g. [p.27].
In transcribing all passages from the letters and memorandum, I have striven to adhere as closely as possible to the original. Some names such as that of [Joseph] Cassin are in brackets to distinguish him from his father John Cassin. Also, words which are unreadable or illegible are so noted in square brackets. When a spelling is so unusual as to be misleading or confusing, the correct spelling immediately follows in square brackets and italicized type or is discussed in a foot note.
John G. M. Sharp, 10 July 2023
* * * * * *
[p.25] I ought at the commencement of this statement, to have solicited your attention to a fact, of which, though you are acquainted with, the President is probably ignorant Viz that the Son in Law of Capt. [Thomas] Tingey, and the Son of Captain [John] Cassin have each, a Store near the Yard.36 Knowledge of this circumstance will tend to elucidate many passages in their offices, conduct, which without that light, it would be difficult to comprehend.
36. Tunis Craven, Commodore Thomas Tingey’s son-in-law, owned a store near the Washington Navy Yard, 7 November 1808, National Intelligencer (Washington, District of Columbia), p. 4. Master Commandant John Cassin’s son, Joseph Cassin, likewise owned a store near the Navy Yard, which sold groceries and shoes. 2 September 1808, National Intelligencer (Washington, District of Columbia), p. 3.
[p.25] The power the commandants have assumed, and, on the most wanton and arbitrary exercised, of dismissing the Workmen from the Yard without your approbations or knowledge, has left the latter no choice in the deposit of this money for Goods. The fear of being dismissed operates effectively on the major part of them, and naturally induces them to conciliate the favor of the commandants by dealing with their Sons. They find from daily examples that the tenure of their employment is during pleasure and not as it was meant to be, and ought to be, during Good Behavior, with the terror of dismissal constantly before The Eyes of the Workmen, it will be impossible for any Purser to obtain a living part of the business against two Rival Stores, under the patronage of the commandants. A difference of 10 or 20 percent in the prices of Goods would be no object to him who reflects that by saving pence he may lose pounds – in other words, that by professing a cheaper store, he might be endangered the permanency of his income.
[p.26] It is an undoubted fact that some weeks ago, 60 of the Workmen of the Yard, embodied themselves into a Society, chose their officers and contributed each a certain sum for the establishment of a fund. The avowed object of their association, which was to be permanent, was the Tar & Feathering of certain characters obnoxious to them in and about the Yard. How far the jurisdiction of this Plumy Tribunal was to extend does not appear. Probably it did not include the Capitol, the seat both of legal justice and of Statue – Legislation. Be that as it may, a Barrel of tar was actually procured; a corresponding of Feather engaged the Tar taken in procession and in open day to the House of the Overseers of the Yard, where it was deposited with the honor of 3 Cheers. This ceremony was performed just opposite the Store of Mr. [William] Prout, one of the Mediated victims of this lawless project.37 This proceeding was soon represented to the commandants. Captain Cassin excused himself from interfering in the matter; it belonged not to him but to the Civil Authorities. To men who had uniformly usurped the right of dismissing the Workmen on the slightest pretext, (What case more flagrant could be presented?) What conduct could have more readily excused a repetition of their stretch of power to which the commandants have been so long habituated! If upon that solitary occasion they felt on diffidence of their authority, why not report the offenders to the Secretary of the Navy? Some of the obnoxious persons are of British Birth and were presumed by the associates to be, of course, Tories.38
37. William Prout, (1753-1823) was a wealthy English immigrant, a business man, slaveholder and Federalist who made fortune in land speculation. Prout was thought by many Navy Yard workers to be pro-British and a monarchist. See 1820 U.S. Census, Washington, DC., Ward 6; Roll: M33_5; Page: 124; Image Number: 130.
38. Hanson to Jefferson 4 November 1808, "It is a fact, Sir, that Three Officers of a Militia Company, called The Volunteer Rifle-Company, are leading Members of the Tar-Company (The Title themselves assume) formed more than 4 months ago, at the Navy-Yard! Their Names are Wm. Smith, Capt. John Davis of Abel and David Dobbins." Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-9035
Their resentment was not confined to persons of that description. Some Americans were included in the plan of their diabolical outrage. No dismissals or suspensions, or reproof whatever, was given to the Transgressors. If it should be asked why the commandants, who being themselves staunch Federalists, cannot be supposed to favor in their hearts any great degree of Liberal and persecuting heat against Toryism, would encourage by conniving at this execrable combination, I answer that upon inspection of the Names of the Ring-Leaders, it will be found that they are good customers of their Sons. Thus, the conduct of the commandants is explained without subjecting them to the charge of political intolerance. I owe that some persons named by the associates have gone constantly armed with Pistols, and determined that, in case of an attack, all the members of this nefarious society shall not continue to escape with impunity.
True it is that the commandants cannot lawfully control the actions of the Workmen, as much Freemen, when out of the Yard as themselves; but true also is it, that they might have been dismissed, suspended or reported to the Head of the Navy Department. Thus might the disgrace reflected on the government by this unpunished atrocity of persons employed by it have been prevented. In my humble opinion unless the offenders are called upon to answer in some way for their offenses or rather to make some kind of reparations for it, all the water in the Eastern Branch will not be able to wash out the stain now imprinted on the character of the Washington Navy Yard.
[p.27] Permit me to call your attention to some abuses, which have existed a long time; so long indeed that I do not recollect the date of their commencement.
[p.27] 1. It has been the practice to employ onboard the Frigates the Laborers of the Yard. From their ignorance of the Seafaring language, and Sea-faring duties and added to terror inspired by clamorous orders and impetuous discipline of the Boatswain, (Whose subjects or rather Vassals they are for the time being, they are) it has often happened that frightened Men receive injuries from incidents on Board, against which, having perturbation out of the question they have not the nautical skill & experience sufficient to guard themselves. A poor widow has lost a valuable Slave (perhaps her only one) by the slipping of his foot, and falling into the Hold. The Laborers are frequently sent to Alexandria, and other places, where they are not returned sometimes till late at Night. Of this Night-Service they greatly complain, especially as they receive no additional pay.
[p.27] 2. It is a common practice to permit the Favorites of the Yard, to have Slaves from Persons in the Country and have them entered on the Rolls as their own. The usual price given to the Master is $10 per annum while the favorite receives from the U.S. for him 75 cents per diem. Joseph Cassin has generally 2 or 3 of this description. The job is to him particularly gainful; because after speculating on the owner, he sometimes speculates on the poor Slave himself, by agreeing to receive from him a certain sum (say $ 10 per month) and giving up to him the remnant of the wages for the purpose of procuring sustenance which the Slave naturally indeed, almost necessarily purchases of his new Master. It is probable; that no speculation on the Master have actually taken place, since it is believed the Slave would not be received into the Yard except through the medium of the Favorite whose interest and not that of the permanent owner, is consulted in this circuitous and insidious operation.39
39. Inquiry, re Tingey, p. 27.
[p.28] 3. It will appear, in the course of the charges, that the commandants have reduced the workmen to a state of complete vassalage in what no man, under the pain of dismissing, dare utter a complaint against them. Many sources of patronage, not yet mentioned, can be pointed out, calculated to complete their official ascendancy the minds as well as the bodies of the workmen. But, though the subjects of this Lilliputian-Despotism, dare not open their eyes the surrounding citizen do not restrain themselves in the Liberty of Speech – and you may rest assured that the administration of the Navy Yard is of bad – very bad – Repute.
I now proceed to the charges, the establishment of which will prove that the system adopted at this place by the commandants, is system of terror, patronage, favoritism, peculation and despotism.
[p.30] 6. I charge him [Tingey] with permitting his Son-in-law Lieutenant [Joseph] Tarbell to keep as a Servant one of the Seamen, whose pay and rations the said Tarbell continues to receive to this day tho he (Tarbell) has been for many months out of the Ordinary – Service.40, 41
40. Inquiry re Tingey, pp. 29-30.
41. Tarbell, Joseph Midshipman, 5 December, 1798. Lieutenant, 25 August, 1800. Master Commandant, 25 April, 1808. Captain, 24 July, 1813, Died 24 November, 1815.
[p.30] 7. I charge him with shameful partiality and injustice in allowing a poor widow woman no more than 50 cents each for the 2 Negroes employed in the Yard, though others, not better entitled receive 75 cents per day and though the poor woman has frequently remonstrated with him on the injustice of his conduct.42
42. Inquiry re Tingey, p. 30.
[p.30] 11. I charge him with withholding from myself a grant of any one request made to him for accommodations, though I was entitled them, not as a favors but as rights appertaining to my office.
[p.30] 13. I charge him as follows about 2 years ago, a seaman was paid off. There being no order at that time to prevent their dealing with me, his account was high so that he had little cash (say about 8 or 10 $) he had dealt largely with Joseph Cassin say to the amount of more than $100 who has, of course, received his wages to this day. This man in order to reenter the service was induced to indenture himself as the Servant of Joseph Cassin. It is probable that his servitude will be for life as he is now compelled to deal with his Master - and no one acquainted with the Temper and habits of Seamen will deny it is an easy matter to keep one of them in everlasting bondage by the instrumentality of Rum. With Rum, I was interdicted from the beginning from furnishing them by positive orders. It appears I would seem to the captain that Rum sold outside of the Gate is less pernicious to the Health and Morals of the seamen than that sold by the Purser. Be that as it may, no restriction it is confidently believed was imposed upon the seamen with respect to buying it out of the yard. It can be proved that the man in question, since the time of resigning his liberty to his Creditor, is frequently deranged in his intellect, so as to be incapable of any duty on board, though he receives or rather his Master receives the highest wages allowed to Able Seamen say 12 $ per month.
[p.32] 14. I charge him as follows about 4 weeks ago, one of the Carpenters about ½ an hour after he had been paid, returned to me and said – " Sir, my situation is this, if I do not this day pay Joseph Cassin 5 $, I am to be turned out of the Yard. Pray lend me the money." I did so. The author of this threat has been traced to the father of Joseph Cassin.
[p.32] 15. I charge him with the dismissal of 2 Slaves, belong to one of the work men - thought he has since acknowledged that there was no cause of complaint against him.
[p.32] 19. I charge him with permitting Lieutenant [Nathaniel ] Harriden to keep as servants 2 of the Seamen in Ordinary, whose pay & rations the said Harriden has uniformly received – though one of them appears to be so little necessary to the accommodation of the Lieutenant at this place, that he has been absent, some months at Boston .
[p.32] 20. I charge him with as follows: that having dismissed a Slave from the Yard, his Mistress applied to have him readmitted. She was refused. She than hired him to Joseph Cassin. He was received into the Yard as the hireling of Joseph Cassin, who has uniformly received his wages to this day.43
43. Inquiry re Tingey, p. 33.
[p.33] 1st I charge Lieut. [Nathaniel] Harriden, with issuing an order to the following effect.
"If any sailor, employed for some most part in the Yard as Laborers should absent themselves ¼ of the day on which they are paid off (Commonly called Pay Day) such persons should not be permitted to come to work again for 3 days."
This unjust and despotic order was enforced, and it can be proved that 4 of those men lost 3 days each in one fortnight in consequence of it.
[p.33] 2nd I charge him with frequently refusing the Seamen in Ordinary an order to get Goods from my Store, through the tyrannous edict of Capt. Cassin has rendered such an order necessary to obtain them – and though the said Harriden, sometime on the next day has no hesitation in giving the same person an order for a month’s pay in Cash, thus enabling them to pay their debts to his friends out of the Yard, and encouraging those Friends to credit them again with more readiness.
* * * * * *
Master Commandant John Cassin’s response to the charges made by Samuel Hanson, p.16
[p.16] 19. The charge deny, Lieut. Harridan is allowed one servant which is a boy, the other boy his apprentice was discharged but when permission was given to his boy to go to Boston for L. H.’s daughter, the other boy supplied his place.
[p.16] 21 The charge I deny although the rum from Hanson’s Store might be considered by me as pernicious to the crew yet either he or his clerks have sold rum to the Marines, the Guard at the Gateway at the same time the men were every day taken up to the Barracks & punished for drunkenness he makes mention of my remonstrating with his Clerks on selling the Blacks rum in such way as to render them incapable of performing main duty and obliged to be discharged for the remainder of the day.
Master Commandant John Cassin’s response to the charges made by Samuel Hanson, p.19
[p.17] In answer to the first charge made against the Commandant, and which came under my knowledge as the executive officer, I have to observe that being always weak handed in the Ordinary its establishment, we were compelled to have recourse to the laborers of the Yard for such work as transporting ships taking in or out masts, rigging, or unrigging ships of war, it is true it was done without consulting Mr. Hanson on the subject, it is likewise true that the Negro man fell down the hatchway on 3rd July 1807 and died next morning, but it was from the effect of liquor he obtained from Mr. Hanson’s store -[p.17] The two Slaves which Joseph Cassin hired were as follows, the first I found here when I came to the Navy Yard as a servant to one of the officers finding an alliance to take place between this fellow and my servant girl, I brought with me, I persuaded my son to hire him from his mistress in order that he might meet his wife, this fellow I have been applied to by his officer for an augmentation of wages which was allowed him. The other to assure you was hired expressly to save him from going to Georgia, however neither of these men belong to Joseph Cassin now, one of them his time expired the 3rd of June the other discharged some time back, figure to yourself how good the job is to him when eight dollars given for each per month to be clothed & fed –
[Signed] John Cassin
* * * * * *
John G. "Jack" Sharp resides in Concord, California. He worked for the United States Navy for thirty years as a civilian personnel officer. Among his many assignments were positions in Berlin, Germany, where in 1989 he was in East Berlin the day the infamous wall was opened. He later served as Human Resources Officer, South West Asia (Bahrain). He returned to the United States in 2001 and was on duty at the Naval District of Washington on 9/11. He has a lifelong interest in history and has written extensively on the Washington, Norfolk, and Pensacola Navy Yards, labor history and the history of African Americans. His previous books include African Americans in Slavery and Freedom at the Washington Navy Yard 1799-1865, Morgan Hannah Press 2011.
History of the Washington Navy Yard Civilian Workforce 1799-1962, 2004.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/browse-by-topic/heritage/washington-navy-yard/pdfs/WNY_History.pdf
and the first complete transcription of the Diary of Michael Shiner Relating to the History of the Washington Navy Yard 1813-1869, 2007/2015 online:
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/d/diary-of-michael-shiner.html
His most recent work includes Register of Patients at Naval Hospital Washington DC 1814 With The Names of American Wounded From The Battle of Bladensburg 2018,
https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/r/register-patients-naval-hospital-washington-dc-1814.html
The last three works were all published by the Naval History and Heritage Command. John served on active duty in the United States Navy, including Vietnam service. He received his BA and MA in History from San Francisco State University. He can be reached at sharpjg@yahoo.com
