Celebrated as the “Father of the American Navy,” John Paul Jones is immortalized in maritime history by a single, defiant moment. While locked in a grueling, close-quarters battle with the British warship HMS Serapis in 1779, Jones famously uttered the rallying cry: “I have not yet begun to fight!” Through a combination of determination, ingenuity, and innovative military tactics, he repeatedly engineered stunning victories against larger and more powerful British vessels. Yet, his legacy extends far beyond a single battlefield triumph or a celebrated quote.
Jones established the foundational traditions, ideals, and values that have sustained the United States Navy for over two hundred and fifty years. While his tactical exploits remain legendary, his profound, long-term institutional impact on naval identity is often overlooked. This exhibit explores Jones’s lasting influence and his enduring presence within the modern U.S. Navy. Examining his early background, his entry into the American struggle for independence, and his contributions to maritime strategy reveals how his revolutionary ideals continue to shape the ethos of today’s sailors.
Foundations on the Scottish Coast
John Paul Jones was born John Paul Jr. on July 6, 1747, in Arbigland, Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland. The youngest of five surviving children born to John Paul Sr. and Jean Duff, he only appended the surname “Jones” later in life to obscure his identity following a legal crisis. His father served as the head gardener for the Arbigland estate, owned by William Craik. While his father was a respected horticulturalist among the estate’s staff, his working-class background meant that young John Paul grew up on the margins of British aristocratic society, an experience that fueled his lifelong desire for personal merit and professional recognition.[1]
Jones spent his early years on the shores of the Solway Firth, where he watched merchant vessels navigate the channel separating Scotland and England. Immersed in the maritime culture of the local ports, he went to sea at the age of thirteen, signing on as a ship’s boy aboard the merchant vessel Friendship, commanded by Captain James Benson. Benson recognized the boy’s sharp intellect and instructed him in seamanship, astronomy, and navigation.
By 1772, through sheer skill and ambition, Jones had risen to command the London-registered merchant ship Betsey. While docked at Tobago in December 1773, Jones faced a mutinous crew over a dispute regarding back wages. During the altercation, Jones struck and killed the ringleader with his sword. Though Jones maintained it was an act of self-defense, local colonial authorities were sympathetic to the crew. Fearing an unfair trial before a local Admiralty court, Jones fled the island under an assumed name, arriving in Virginia in late 1773. He spent the next two years in exile in the American colonies, adopting the name “Jones” and aligning himself with the growing vanguard of the American revolutionary movement.[2]
Commission in the Continental Navy
In late 1775, as the Continental Congress moved to establish a naval force to challenge British maritime hegemony, Jones traveled to Philadelphia. His navigation skills caught the attention of the Marine Committee, and he was tasked with converting the prominent merchant vessel Black Prince into a functioning warship. Renamed the USS Alfred, the ship became the flagship of the new fleet. On December 3, 1775, Lieutenant John Paul Jones personally hoisted the Grand Union Flag (featuring thirteen alternating red and white stripes with the British Union jack in the canton) over the Alfred. This marked the first time the primary symbol of American maritime sovereignty was raised over a Continental warship.[3]
Confirmed as a first lieutenant by the Continental Congress, Jones quickly established a reputation for aggressive leadership and tactical audacity. His exploits in challenging the Royal Navy in its home waters provided the embattled American cause with vital international prestige.
Courage in the Face of Overwhelming Adversity
The most enduring value that John Paul Jones contributed to American naval culture is the concept of unyielding resilience when confronted by catastrophic tactical odds. This ethos was codified during the Battle of Flamborough Head on September 23, 1779. Commanding the leaking, retrofitted East Indiaman Bonhomme Richard, Jones engaged the brand-new British frigate HMS Serapis. When the British captain, Richard Pearson, observed the catastrophic damage inflicted on the American ship and demanded to know if Jones had struck his colors, Jones delivered his immortal reply. In his official memoirs, presented years later to King Louis XVI of France, Jones contextualized the sheer asymmetrical nature of the naval war:
“If at the time of this act of Parliament the strength of the English navy had been compared with that of the American navy, a relationship of a hundred to one would have been found. Noble sons of liberty, may this be the basis of your glorious renown. May your enemies remember forever how their cruelties were exercised in vain! That far from abating your courage, they forced you, with your tremendous acts of heroism, to sustain the American flag on the oceans that the author of nature created free.”[4]
Jones’s ironclad determination was contagious, inspiring his diverse, multinational crew to fight on even as the Bonhomme Richard was actively sinking beneath them. This leadership style relied on inspiring subordinates through shared risk and persuasive command. Jones recalled an earlier encounter in 1776 against the 32-gun frigate HMS Solebay:
“Near the Bermuda Island I encountered the frigate Solebay of 32 guns with a convoy… I wanted to avoid an engagement with such a superior force, but my officers and crew stubbornly insisted that it was the fleet from Jamaica, and was necessary at this point in the war to command by persuasion. The result was a serious engagement lasting six hours, which at the end was carried out at pistol range.”[5]
This dedication to sustaining operations under fire laid the cultural groundwork for the modern U.S. Navy’s emphasis on warrior toughness and mission endurance.[6]
International Naval Diplomacy
Beyond his accomplishments as a combat tactician, Jones recognized that naval power was an instrument of international statecraft. He understood that the American Revolution could not be won in isolation; it required foreign alliances and geopolitical legitimacy. Operating out of French ports, Jones acted as a military diplomat, leveraging his naval victories to convince the French court that the United States was a viable sovereign partner capable of defeating British forces.
Following the signing of the Treaty of Alliance on February 6, 1778, Jones sought to secure the first formal international recognition of the American flag by a foreign military. On February 14, 1778, commanding the sloop of war USS Ranger, Jones sailed into Quiberon Bay on the French coast, where a powerful French fleet under Admiral Toussaint-Guillaume Picquet de la Motte was anchored. Jones negotiated an exchange of naval honors. The Ranger fired a thirteen-gun salute to the French flag, and the French flagship returned a nine-gun salute. While fewer guns than the American salute, this symbolic exchange marked the first official recognition of a United States military vessel by a foreign sovereign power, establishing a precedent for modern international naval diplomacy.[7]
Insisting on Military Professionalism
A core priority for Jones was establishing a culture of rigorous professionalism within the newly formed Continental Navy. Unlike the highly structured Royal Navy, early American crews were often composed of privateers, merchantmen, and foreign volunteers who lacked standardized training, uniforms, and uniform disciplinary codes. Continental Navy Midshipman Nathaniel Fanning, in his contemporary journals, documented Jones’s strict insistence on military protocol, proper uniforms, and precise naval decorum.
Jones went to great lengths to demonstrate to European observers that American officers were gentlemen-professionals rather than lawless privateers. While docked at L’Orient, France, Jones hosted elaborate diplomatic dinners for French aristocrats and naval dignitaries, using his ship as a floating embassy. Fanning recalled that Jones ordered his crew to conduct a meticulous “sham sea-fight” to demonstrate their technical proficiency to the visitors:
“Captain Jones and his officers were dressed in their best uniforms, neatly displaying impeccable military comportment. We midshipmen were instructed by the captain to conduct ourselves with propriety and tacitly obey the lady supervising the ceremony.”[8]
By demanding technical mastery, clean uniforms, and adherence to naval protocol, Jones helped transition the early American fleet from a collection of armed merchant vessels into a disciplined, internationally respected military institution.[9]
Tactical Innovation and Asymmetric Warfare
John Paul Jones was an operational visionary who rejected the rigid, conventional naval doctrines of the 18th century. Traditional European naval tactics of the era relied on standard “line-of-battle” formations, where opposing fleets sailed parallel to one another, exchanging broadsides until one side surrendered through attrition. Recognizing that the Continental Navy lacked the ships and heavy artillery to survive a conventional slugfest, Jones pioneered asymmetric naval warfare, utilizing stealth, calculated ruses, surprise raids on shore infrastructure, and highly maneuverable small vessels to disrupt enemy logistics.
Jones studied French naval tactics closely, acknowledging his debt to French Admiral Louis Guillouet, le Comte d’Orvilliers. In his memoirs, Jones noted that he was “treated with special distinction and I received several important lessons on naval tactics and on the details of conducting fleets and their operations.”[10]
Jones used these lessons to outmaneuver technically superior foes. During the Battle of Flamborough Head, the Bonhomme Richard was severely outgunned. Midshipman Fanning’s journals provide a meticulous account of the tactical imbalance, noting that the Bonhomme Richard carried forty older cannons, while the HMS Serapis was armed with fifty state-of-the-art guns, including a devastating battery of eighteen-pounders that easily pierced the American ship’s hull. Realizing he could not win a conventional duel, Jones used an innovative tactical maneuver to ram and physically lash the Bonhomme Richard to the Serapis. This eliminated the British advantage in long-range firepower, turning the naval engagement into a close-quarters infantry battle fought by marksmen in the rigging, ultimately forcing the British to surrender.[11]
Anchoring the Past in the Present: The Enduring Continuity of Naval Command
The foundational ideals championed by John Paul Jones—courage under fire, international naval diplomacy, strict military professionalism, and tactical innovation—are not historical artifacts; they are the baseline values taught to every modern American sailor. From the halls of the U.S. Naval Academy to operations deployed across global waters, Jones’s operational philosophy remains a cornerstone of American sea power.
To experience the material history of the U.S. Navy firsthand, visitors are encouraged to tour The Mariners’ Museum and Park in Newport News, Virginia. The museum features the USS Monitor Center, which houses the revolving gun turret, steam engine, and thousands of recovered artifacts from the legendary Civil War ironclad. By exploring the transitions from the wooden sails of Jones’s era to the ironclad revolution of 1862, visitors can witness the continuous line of American naval innovation and dedication to duty that defines the nation’s maritime heritage.
Notes
Evan Thomas, John Paul Jones: Sailor, Hero, Father of the American Navy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), 9–14.
Samuel Eliot Morison, John Paul Jones: A Sailor’s Biography (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1959), 23–35.
Joseph Callo, John Paul Jones: America’s First Sea Warrior (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2006), 23–26.
Gerard W. Gawalt and John R. Sellers, eds., John Paul Jones’ Memoir of the American Revolution Presented to King Louis XVI of France (Forest Grove: University Press of the Pacific, 2005), 15–16.
Ibid., 8.
Thomas, John Paul Jones, 174–185.
Callo, John Paul Jones: America’s First Sea Warrior, 43.
Nathaniel Fanning, Sailing Under John Paul Jones: The Memoir of Continental Navy Midshipman Nathaniel Fanning, 1778–1783, ed. Louis Arthur Norton (Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 2006), 65–66.
Morison, John Paul Jones: A Sailor’s Biography, 118–122.
By Alyssa Dozier, B.A. in History and Political Science, Christopher Newport University (’26), and Sheri Shuck-Hall, PhD, Professor of History, Christopher Newport University
The American Revolutionary War was fought from 1775 to 1783, ignited by colonial discontent over British taxation without political representation. This conflict remains a cornerstone of global history, as the American Patriots’ victory secured sovereign separation from the British Monarchy. This feat was remarkable given the Royal Navy’s notorious global dominance. Yet, the Americans did not accomplish this monumental task alone. Many scholars consider the American Revolution a truly global war due to the direct involvement of various European powers. This reality was recognized by the revolutionaries themselves; in 1777, American commissioners in Paris confidently proclaimed, “All Europe is for us.”[1]
While France’s formal alliance with the Continental Army is well known, an underacknowledged nation—though never a formal treaty ally—greatly swayed the war in favor of the United States. Utilizing maritime artifacts from The Mariners’ Museum and Park in Newport News, Virginia, this exhibition explores the crucial role of the Dutch Republic in the American Revolutionary War. It traces their motivations for countering British hegemony alongside their vital military, financial, and commercial contributions to the Patriot cause. Though the Dutch never signed a formal military alliance with America, a mutual enemy prompted a situational friendship that provided the colonists with vital funding, international legitimacy, clandestine military goods, and a crucial naval distraction.[2]
The Republic’s Reasoning
The Dutch entrance into the American Revolutionary War was highly complex, as the Dutch Republic initially claimed strict neutrality. In the opening years of the conflict, the United Provinces were ideologically fractured. Various aristocratic provinces aligned with Great Britain, while others rallied behind the American colonies and France. Because the Dutch had successfully revolted against their own Spanish rulers two centuries prior—spurred in part by unfair imperial taxation—many Dutch citizens felt a deep ideological affinity for the American revolutionaries.
Furthermore, immense economic incentives motivated merchants to cultivate ties with a budding American nation. However, the threat of British naval retaliation loomed large. Dutch leaders feared that overt support for the American rebels would collapse their delicate trade relationships with their powerful neighbor. Poking the British lion was a dangerous gamble given that the Dutch economy relied entirely on the free navigation of waterways, which were largely dominated by the British fleet. Consequently, paralyzed by domestic political divisions and lacking adequate naval defenses, the States General of the Dutch Republic officially proclaimed a policy of neutrality on March 20, 1775.[3]
The Diplomatic Tug-of-War
Though seemingly passive, this initial stance of neutrality ultimately worked to the Americans’ advantage. The Dutch United Provinces quickly became the center of a diplomatic tug-of-war, as Great Britain and France each sought to influence the Netherlands’ trade policies. To satisfy the British, the Dutch outwardly conceded to specific trade restrictions. Covertly, however, Dutch merchants engaged in secret negotiations with French agents and American revolutionaries, maintaining a private line of communication with the Continental Congress.
These secret rendezvous managed American logistics and strategic affairs, often facilitated by pro-American Dutch intermediaries such as Charles William Frederick Dumas. This clandestine network demonstrated the Patriots’ soft-power influence within the Dutch government. Conversely, Great Britain maintained highly active, overt agents in the Republic, led by Ambassador Sir Joseph Yorke, who was tasked with monitoring the Dutch state and enforcing neutrality. Growing suspicious of illicit trade, the British demanded stricter enforcement, including embargoes on arms exports to the Dutch West Indies and free passage for British troops through United Provinces territory.[4]
Yet, the Dutch refused to capitulate to all of Britain’s demands. They steadfastly kept their home ports open to American commercial vessels and blocked the deployment of the Scots Brigade—an elite mercenary unit under Dutch service—until they secured assurances that the troops would not be used to suppress the American colonies. The Dutch Republic walked a razor-thin line, maintaining a flimsy facade of neutrality while facilitating covert communications with American rebels right under the noses of British observers. The Republic conceded just enough to protect its merchant shipping and secure free navigation of the seas. However, Great Britain’s patience was wearing thin.[5]
King George III grew increasingly furious with the flimsiness of Dutch neutrality. He was particularly vexed by Dutch merchants violating international contraband laws by running supplies to the French, the Dutch West Indies, and the American mainland. Tensions exploded when France formally entered the war in 1778, prompting the Royal Navy to enact aggressive search-and-seizure tactics against Dutch merchantmen. When the Dutch Republic attempted to protect its ships by joining the League of Armed Neutrality in 1780, Great Britain immediately retaliated by declaring war. The outbreak of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War effectively ended Dutch neutrality, forcing the Republic into an open, pro-American stance.[6]
Throwing Money at the Revolution
Throughout the war, the Continental Congress aggressively pursued foreign loans across Europe to prevent bankruptcy, though they initially met with little success. The Americans first targeted the wealthy financial markets of Amsterdam in 1776, using backchannels to gauge the interest of potential Dutch investors. Securing these loans was a matter of life or death for the rebellion; continental currency was experiencing hyperinflation, and previous French financial subsidies were rapidly dwindling. Highlighting the desperation of the era, John Adams wrote in the fall of 1778:
“The powers at war, or at the eve of war, have such vast demands, and offer terms so much better than ours, that nothing but sheer benevolence to our cause can induce any person to lend us.”[7]
Despite poor American credit and widespread fear of a Patriot collapse, the rebels persisted in their diplomatic charm offensive. As Anglo-Dutch commercial relations worsened and Dutch public opinion swung sharply in favor of the American cause, the financial gates finally opened. In 1782, John Adams successfully secured the first of several massive, low-interest sovereign loans from Dutch banking houses. This critical influx of hard capital sustained the American government through the war’s final stages and funded the early infrastructure of the new nation.[8]
Raiding the Redcoats: The Battle of Dogger Bank
The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780–1784) was inextricably linked to the American Revolution, directly caused by Britain’s outrage over Dutch trade with the rebels. This side-conflict triggered naval engagements around the globe wherever British and Dutch colonial interests intersected. On August 5, 1781, the conflict culminated in the Battle of Dogger Bank in the North Sea—the primary fleet engagement between the two nations during the revolutionary era.
The battle was a brutal, three-and-a-half-hour slugfest that resulted in heavy casualties on both sides. It ended in a tactical stalemate; both fleets suffered such severe structural damage that they were rendered completely immobile, forcing the British to break off the engagement and withdraw. While the Dutch navy was not fighting directly on American soil, their resistance diverted vital British warships, sailors, and resources away from the American theater. By drawing the focus of the Royal Navy to the North Sea, the Dutch significantly degraded Britain’s capacity to suppress the rebellion in North America.[9]
The Mariners’ Museum collection preserves an original Dutch silver medallion struck to commemorate the Battle of Dogger Bank. The obverse offers a detailed stern view of both warring flagships amidst the smoke of combat, while the reverse depicts a rostral crown resting above a laurel wreath. The inscription proudly proclaims:
“Huzza! Britain abandons the sea! …Oh Batavians, God sustains your right; Zoutman, by his heroic valor, has restored the honor of the free flag, and overcome arrogance in this battle.”[10]
Exports and Legitimization
Commerce was the lifeblood of the Dutch Republic. During their initial period of neutrality, Dutch merchants capitalized on the conflict by running massive shipments of muskets, saltpeter, and lead to French and American agents. This contraband trade provided an indispensable lifeline for the rebellion. The sheer volume of Dutch provisions was staggering; records indicate that over the course of just two days in April 1776, an estimated 85,000 pounds of Dutch gunpowder were shipped to France for American use.
The epicenter of this illicit trade network was the Dutch Caribbean island of St. Eustatius. Positioned perfectly along Atlantic shipping lanes, this tiny free port allowed American vessels to easily exchange raw agricultural goods for manufactured military assets. This supply chain was critical in the early years of the war, keeping the Continental Army armed before domestic American manufacturing could be established. Observing this economic lifeline, John Adams wrote to Congress:
“From the success of several enterprises by the way of St. Eustatius it seems that the trade between the two countries [the United States and the United Provinces] is likely to increase, and possibly Congress may think it expedient to send a minister there.”[11]
Adams’s foresight highlighted how a shared commercial interest laid the groundwork for an enduring geopolitical friendship.[12]
The First Salute to the American Flag
Beyond supplying physical weapons, the Dutch Republic provided one of the earliest and most vital forms of international diplomatic recognition for the United States. This came in the form of a dramatic international scandal at the port of St. Eustatius. On November 16, 1776, the American brigantine Andrew Doria sailed into the Caribbean harbor flying the Grand Union flag of the Continental Congress. Under explicit orders from the Dutch governor, Johannes de Graaff, the cannons of Fort Oranje fired a formal, eleven-gun imperial salute to the American vessel.[13]
This symbolic act marked the first time a foreign power officially recognized a vessel belonging to the United States as a legitimate entity rather than a pirate ship. The British government responded with immediate outrage. In a fiery letter of protest to Ambassador Sir Joseph Yorke, the British Ministry condemned the salute as a:
“…flagrant insult offered to His Majesty’s colours, in the public honour paid by the principal Dutch fort [St. Eustatius] to a Rebel brigantine carrying the flag of the Rebel Congress.”[14]
Though local in execution, this salute carried massive global weight. It signaled to the world that the wealthy Dutch Republic viewed America as a sovereign, independent state, providing the revolutionary cause with its first taste of international legitimacy.[15]
Sovereignty Formed on the Seas: The Dutch Legacy in Early America
The Dutch Republic played a foundational role in the achievement of American independence, a historical truth that is often overshadowed by the narrative of French intervention. What began as a covert commercial enterprise evolved under British pressure into the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, anchoring the Republic firmly to the American cause. From the strategic naval diversions in the North Sea and the illicit arms pipelines of St. Eustatius, to the vital financial credit of Amsterdam and the symbolic roar of the cannons at Fort Oranje, Dutch aid was woven into the fabric of the American victory.
As the United States honors the 250th anniversary of its independence, it is essential to look beyond its borders and appreciate the global network of friends that shaped early American history. This legacy of international cooperation secured American sovereignty and continues to influence geopolitical alliances today. To truly understand the modern United States, one must acknowledge the international friends who stepped forward to support a fragile rebellion. To explore these maritime narratives and view the physical artifacts of the Revolutionary War firsthand, visitors are encouraged to tour the galleries at The Mariners’ Museum and Park in Newport News, Virginia.
About the Author
Alyssa Dozier, Class of 2026, graduated with a double major in History and Political Science within the President’s Leadership Program and Honors Program at Christopher Newport University. A decorated student-athlete, Alyssa served as a three-year Captain of the CNU Women’s Varsity Volleyball team, earning First-Team Academic All-American honors in 2023 and 2024. She developed this gallery script as part of a public history partnership and intends to pursue a career teaching high school history and political science while coaching varsity athletics.
Notes
Friedrich Edler, The Dutch Republic and the American Revolution (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1911), 8.
Gabriel Paquette and Gonzalo M. Quintero Saravia, eds., Spain and the American Revolution: New Approaches and Perspectives (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2022), 8–14.
Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy, John A. Ragosta, and Marie-Jeanne Rossignol, eds., European Friends of the American Revolution (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2023), 67–75; see also Edler, The Dutch Republic, 14–20.
O’Shaughnessy, Ragosta, and Rossignol, European Friends, 70–81; Edler, The Dutch Republic, 16–26.
O’Shaughnessy, Ragosta, and Rossignol, European Friends, 73–88; Edler, The Dutch Republic, 16–35.
Edler, The Dutch Republic, 20–71.
Cited in Edler, The Dutch Republic, 77.
Edler, The Dutch Republic, 68–170.
Material Culture Reference Files, “Medallion Commemorating the Battle of Dogger Bank, August 5th, 1781,” CL3808, The Mariners’ Museum and Park, Newport News, Virginia.
Parker Watson, B.A. in History and Museum Studies, Christopher Newport University
Sheri Shuck-Hall, Ph.D. Professor of History, Christopher Newport University
Oysters are an integral part of the oceans that surround us. They are especially important in the Chesapeake Bay as they filter and clean the water, and their reefs prevent coastal erosion and protect estuaries. Oysters are essential for the health of the bay’s ecosystem and are a source of food for the people of the mid-Atlantic and beyond. We have been eating oysters for generations. In fact, today’s methods of harvesting oysters are more like those practiced by Indigenous peoples that inhabited the Chesapeake Bay area before European settlement. Featuring artifacts from the Watermen’s Museum in Yorktown and archival images from the Mariners’ Museum in Newport News, Virginia, this exhibit will explore oyster harvesting by diverse people throughout time in the Chesapeake Bay and discuss how we can help preserve the ecosystem and support sustainable practices.
Oysters are a very interesting species. When looking at how they live below the water, oysters start out as floating larvae before eventually settling down on a solid surface, such as rocks. Over time, they create oyster reefs by gathering with other oysters and grow together. Oysters around 500 years ago were mostly average size (adults can grow up to 8 inches, but it is more common for them to be from 3 to 5 inches in the Chesapeake Bay today). They are measured by the size of the shell. Indigenous people had methods of selecting and harvesting oysters by hand, mostly by men or boys, and resulted in picking more consistent sizes. Those tribes living near the Chesapeake Bay practiced sustainability as they collected oysters without harming the habitat. Four supporting factors that contributed to a sustainable oyster population were: water depth and existing technology restricted communities to harvesting close to shore; oysters may have been harvested intensively only at certain times of the year; the density of the human population was drastically lower; and human diets at the time had a mixture of marine and land-dwelling resources. The Algonquian-speaking tribes of the Chesapeake Bay ate oysters regularly, either stewed or roasted, because they were a very valuable source of protein for the Native population, and the size of the oyster meat provided plenty of food to support the villages.[1]
This image depicts Indigenous peoples using various nets to collect marine life for their diets. Oysters would have been collected by hand or by using rake-like tools seen here. Incolarum Virginiae piscandi ratio (The Method of Fishing of the Inhabitants of Virginia), Theodor de Bry after John White’s watercolor paintings, 1590. Courtesy of the Mariners’ Museum Library.
When Europeans arrived in North America, they had limited knowledge of what the land was like or what kind of food supply that this new world offered. When they met Indigenous peoples, they eventually learned how to farm fruits and vegetables and hunt and fish the wildlife, including the Chesapeake Bay oyster. Realizing that oysters were not only an excellent food source but also a way to earn money, colonists used tools to harvest them more easily. Oyster tongs were widely used from the 18th century onward; they had long pieces of wood with metal clamps at the end to scrape the top layer from the reef and pull up bunches of oysters rather than picking them by hand. Oysters quickly became a popular protein in mid-Atlantic diets, especially as oyster tongers competed in a growing market.[2]
Different types of tongs used in the American oyster industry. Image reproduced from von BrantOyster tongs were an easy way to gather oysters quickly and used for generations; the men who used this tool were called oyster tongers. Image from The Daily Press, 1961, Labeled: Delmas Haddaway (left) and Chester (right) use huge rake like thongs to get oysters from Choptank River on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. P0001.001/01-#P1694. Courtesy of the Mariners’ Museum Library.
Boom Time
In the 19th and 20th centuries, oyster harvesting experienced a boom. A new technology, called the dredge, provided quicker and more efficient extraction of oysters from the reefs, especially if used with motorized boats. This piece of equipment would be thrown over the back of a boat and towed while moving. Its purpose was to scrape the top of the oyster reefs and collect large quantities of oysters. However, in doing so, dredges scraped and destroyed the floor of the Chesapeake Bay, which disrupted the ecosystem for the oyster and other organisms that dwelled on the ocean floor. Many communities of oyster tongers, who represented more traditional methods of oyster harvesting, resisted dredging.[3]
Photo by author of a fishing dredge from the Watermen’s Museum in Yorktown, Virginia.
Watermen who continued to use tongs to harvest oysters in the second half of the 19th century were typically smaller and owner-operated compared to their highly industrialized counterparts. The new dredging system outstripped the oyster yield of more traditional tongers. In 1849, watermen harvested 178,000 bushels of oysters; ten years later it jumped to 2.3 million bushels. By 1865, oyster harvesting in Virginia increased to 2 million bushels per year, then doubled to 4 million by 1871. Consequently, the period between 1860 and 1920 saw a massive expansion of the Chesapeake Bay oyster fishery and the introduction of industrialized harvesting that eventually depleted oysters in the bay.[4]
Picture of oyster dredging in the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. Inscription: “Capt. Wade Muirphy of Tilghman, Md. operating a dredge, legal only during the period from November 1 to March 15, a shorten season than allowed tong men.” AP News features Photo. G- Daily Press, 1961, P0001.001/01-#P1693. Courtesy of the Mariners’ Museum Library.
Increased oyster harvesting from dredging in the 19th and 20th centuries also came with a new way for oysters to be sold to consumers. In the early 1800s canning revolutionized food preservation. Harvested oysters need to be eaten quickly (up to 2 days on ice for safety). However, canned oysters allowed greater commercial distribution beyond the coast and a long shelf life (albeit sacrificing the fresh flavor). The process was simple: canners kept them on ice until they were heated 5 to 7 minutes at 400 degrees. Then, they shucked the oysters once cooled and placed the meat into cans or jars with hot water and salt before sealed and sterilized, preserving it on average for a year. The hub of the Chesapeake Bay commercial oyster canning industry was in Baltimore, Maryland by Edward Wright from Kent County on the Eastern Shore in 1831. Oyster canning improved throughout the years, especially during the 1860s after the Civil War. Canners experimented with new methods that preserved the oysters more efficiently to transport them for sale to different states and countries.[5]
An example of the expanding market for oysters with the introduction of canning. Eldridge Cook, mentored by T.C. Walker and a graduate of the Gloucester Training School, was the owner of Cook’s Seafood Company, a top national seafood processing plant and supplier by the 1950s. He operated the thriving company that distributed oysters like these around the world for over 70 years until 2010. Photo by author. Courtesy of the Watermen’s Museum in Yorktown, Virginia.
How Can We Help Preserve Oyster Reefs?
In the late 1800s, the United States experienced a nationwide conservation movement to preserve its natural resources, including the Chesapeake Bay. Established in 1875, the Virginia Fish Commission (now known as the Virginia Marine Resources Commission) began to push legislation that placed greater restrictions on oyster harvesting. In 1929, the commission appointed oyster inspectors and started to plant shells to rebuild oyster habitats and counter the overharvesting of past decades. Today there are alternative ways to harvest oysters responsibly in the Chesapeake Bay. As dredging is highly destructive, many have opted to use more environmentally friendly cages that help sustain the bay oysters and keep the ecosystem healthy. People now farm oysters by placing cages in the water where the oysters create a “reef” as they grow and flourish with access to natural food sources, like algae, then flip the cages regularly. Below are images of the different types of cages that are common today, including the bottom cage, the Taylor float, and the downunder. These are used all throughout the bay to keep the oyster population alive and healthy, but most importantly, sustain the oyster population.[6]
The most common cage is the bottom cage that is placed on the bottom of the sea floor and can hold up to 300 market-sized oysters. Photo by author of a bottom cage from the Watermen’s Museum in Yorktown, Virginia.The Taylor float drifts on the surface. This type is the base cage for many oyster farms in the bay and in the United States. It holds up to 400 market-size oysters; once full this cage is heavy to lift, so it has an optional lid to help get the oysters out more easily and efficiently. Photo by author of a Taylor float from the Watermen’s Museum in Yorktown, Virginia.A downunder float is typically tied to a dock with rope and hung just under the water level. It can hold up to 150 market-sized oysters and is used for growing and harvesting. The cage got its name because it originated in Australia. Photo by author of a downunder from the Watermen’s Museum in Yorktown, Virginia.
The Chesapeake Bay oyster has been a steadily harvested and eaten seafood for many generations. From the Indigenous peoples’ careful hand-selection harvesting to modern-day sustainable oyster farming, we have learned to extract oysters safely and efficiently while protecting the ecosystem. As of 2020, the number of market-size oysters (larger than three inches) was about 400 million compared to 2018 when it was 300 million. These are significant improvements and proves that with community action and environmental education, positive change happens.[7] We must be careful to protect the Chesapeake Bay oyster so that they can continue to thrive. To learn more about oysters and watermen, visit the Watermen’s Museum in historic Yorktown and the Mariners’ Museum in Newport News, Virginia. Here you will find exhibits with interesting artifacts, marine archaeology, and interactive displays and programs tracing the history of our diverse coast and its people. For more information conservation and how you can help protect the bay, see the Chesapeake Bay Foundation at Homepage – Chesapeake Bay Foundation (cbf.org).
Acknowledgements
This exhibit was a service-learning project with the Watermen’s Museum in Yorktown and the Mariners’ Museum in Newport News in partnership with the Public History Center and the Department of History at Christopher Newport University. We would like to give special thanks to Mike Steen, the Director of Education at Watermen’s, for assisting Parker with this exhibit, providing his expertise on the Chesapeake Bay, and acting as a peer reviewer. We would also like to thank the Mariners’ Museum Library for access to their extensive digital collection of photographs on watermen.
About the Author
Parker Watson graduated from Christopher Newport University with a B.A. in history and a minor in museum studies, graduating with Service Distinction. During his time at CNU, Parker completed an internship with Great Bridge Battlefield and Waterways Park in Chesapeake. He is currently working as a museum technician at the Hampton University Museum while pursuing a MA in museum studies.
[2] Juliana M. Harding, Roger Mann, and Melissa J. Southworth, “Shell Length-at-age Relationships in James River, Virginia, Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) Collected Four Centuries Apart,” Journal of Shellfish Research 27(5), (1 December 2008), 1109-1115. https://doi.org/10.2983/0730-8000-27.5.1109
[3] Bradford Botwick and Debra A. McClane, “Landscapes of Resistance: A View of the Nineteenth-Century Chesapeake Bay Oyster Fishery.” Historical Archaeology 39, no. 3 (2005): 94–112.
[5] William S. Dudley, Maritime Maryland: A History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010,), 110-111; N. D. Jarvis, “Curing and Canning of Fishery Products: A History.” Marine Fisheries Review 50, no. 4 (1988): 180-185; “Selecting, Preparing and Canning Meat.” National Center for Home Food Preservation | How Do I? Can Meats. Accessed April 7, 2023. https://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_05/oysters.html.
By Lauren Tamayo, B.A. in History, Christopher Newport University and Sheri Shuck-Hall, Ph.D., Professor of History, Christopher Newport University
In the early settlement of present-day Chesapeake, Virginia, Indigenous people and later European colonists used the surrounding waterways to survive and prosper. Its strategic location factored into the area’s major role at the start of the American Revolution. On November 7, 1775, near Norfolk, John Murray, Earl of Dunmore and Royal Governor of Virginia, emancipated enslaved Africans and indentured servants if they joined the British cause against the rebellious Virginians. Many escaped slaves ultimately aided Dunmore and the British Army in the attempted siege of Great Bridge on the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. The ensuing battle on December 9, 1775, led to a consequential victory for the Patriots, providing a momentum to the cause for independence. Why was Great Bridge such an important place for the British and colonists in Virginia? This exhibit will explore the significance of the waterways of Hampton Roads, transportation in the Revolutionary Era, and everyday life along the Elizabeth River.[1]
Traveling by boat was a daily occurrence for the locals living in and around the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, named after the daughter of King James I (1566-1625) by English colonists. During the early and mid-1700s, the South relied heavily on agriculture and the sale of raw materials. The area between present-day upper North Carolina and southern Virginia was covered in marshlands and waterways that prevented direct travel to port cities. In order to transport many of the goods and materials produced in these regions to high commerce areas, it was almost a necessity to travel by boat. These passageways would be the foundation to the development of Hampton Roads, Virginia and the continuous use of the surrounding waterways.[2]
The essential use of water transportation is what led to the region being known as Hampton Roads shortly after the founding of Virginia. Likely named after the 3rd Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley–a founding member of the Virginia Company of London–Hampton Roads referred not to roads, but to the many rivers, streams, and other bodies of water found throughout the area. Colonists often referred to water routes as roads. Hampton Roads constituted the area or channel connecting the Elizabeth, James, and Nansemond Rivers with the Chesapeake Bay; today Hampton Roads includes the major cities and counties that surround these waters. People across greater Virginia and North Carolina used this area as a method of transportation for raw materials and agriculture to reach the largest port in Hampton Roads, located in present-day Port Norfolk.[3]
18th Century Ships in Hampton Roads
In Great Bridge and the surrounding areas of Hampton Roads, there were four main types of ships used to transport people and goods. The most common of these boats was the bateau; however, schooners, row galleys, and brigs could be found in deeper waters. A bateau was a flat bottomed, double-ended boat that was frequently used in the Southern colonies during the 1700s. The name bateau originates from the French word for boat and was habitually used in the region due to the ease of crafting and its ability to carry substantial amounts of cargo. Bateaux often had cloth coverings, and although the styles varied, the most common was a round, wagon style cover that enclosed a portion of the boat. Bateaux also easily handled shallow waters, which was especially useful on the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River.[4]
Colonists used schooners in the nearby waters of the Elizabeth River for their narrow build and the shallowness of the hull. Due to their slimmer frame, schooners were less common for large amounts of cargo. Yet the boats offered speedier travel for small transports. Many schooners had multiple posts and large sails that also aided in the speed of the ship during periods of breeze; when not in use, shipmen rolled up the sails. Fishermen and coasters sailing to inland waters and at sea heavily used schooners as they were reliable in a variety of weather conditions.[5]
In comparison, row galleys were large ships that were long and narrow much like schooners; however, they were much larger and had a deep hull. Often used during the American Revolution, these boats supported more weight and often carried swivel guns and other artillery for the war effort. Row galleys frequented the surrounding waters of Hampton Roads but were less common within Great Bridge due to the shallow waters of the Elizabeth River.[6]
“Watercolor depicting the American line of battle before the 1776 Battle of Valcour Island,” featuring some row galleys powered by oars. National Archives of Canada.
One of the most efficient and popular sailing ships in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was the brig. It was a larger ship and usually had two main sails. The appeal of this boat came from its ability to transport copious amounts of cargo. These ships also differed from the others in that they were square-rigged on both ends of the mast. While the hulls of these ships were not shallow enough to enter the waters of Great Bridge, brigs could be seen in the Chesapeake Bay and other deeper waters of Hampton Roads. Although not usually built in the colonies, these ships were commonly found in colonial waters during the 1700s and often used by the British.[7]
“First official salute to the American flag on board an American warship in a foreign port, 16 November 1776.” Painting by Phillips Melville of the Continental Brig Andrew Doria receiving a salute from the Dutch fort at St. Eustatius, West Indies, 16 November 1776. Courtesy of the U.S. Navy Art Collection, Washington, D.C.
Life Along the Intracoastal Waterway
In colonial Virginia, Bridge Town, later known as Great Bridge, was a prime location because of its easy access to the waterways that acted as highways for people and goods. Due to the constant need for transportations routes, many locals used Great Bridge as a passage from North Carolina to the port city of Norfolk.[8] The Tidewater economy relied heavily on the planting and harvesting of tobacco as a means of income; many Virginians enslaved Africans and benefited financially from this unfree labor. The colonists who lived near Great Bridge were mostly small farmers because of the sandy soil that was less conducive for large plantations. The grain industry within the colonies was also gaining momentum. The Chesapeake area was a prime exporter of wheat, as well as the front runner for Indian corn. The massive reliance on agricultural development meant that many people around Great Bridge were either farmers or were connected to the agriculture industry.[9]
Everyday life within Great Bridge revolved around the family. During this time most of the houses were smaller, one-levels built in the colonial style. These houses were often positioned along the riverbanks to provide access to the Elizabeth River and therefore easy transport of goods and services. Many of the rooms within the house were multipurpose and a majority contained the means to be turned into a bedroom to adjust to large families as well as travelers. The Three Tun Tavern located in Great Bridge provided boarding for the night as many people passing through needed food and lodging on their way to the Port of Norfolk.[10]
Throughout the eighteenth century, the influence of the waterways continued to shape the lifestyles and environment of the Chesapeake region. Between 1728 and 1729, Colonel William Byrd II, a notorious plantation owner, surveyed the border between Virginia and North Carolina, identifying the large marshlands known as the Great Dismal Swamp. After his survey was completed, Byrd wrote a petition to the king requesting the approval to drain the swamp and to create fertile land for the ever-growing agricultural production, mostly using slave labor. [11]
After Byrd’s survey, many Virginians argued for the creation of a canal that linked the Tidewater region and Chesapeake Bay to northeastern North Carolina, known as the Albemarle region. However, it would not be until 1793, when both Virginia and North Carolina state governments authorized the project, that the Dismal Swamp Company began construction of a canal. Despite Byrd’s initial thought that the project would be easy to complete, it took enslaved Africans twelve grueling years of digging the canal by hand to finish it. When it was completed in 1805, the six-foot deep and 15-foot-wide canal spanned the length of twenty-one miles and contained seven locks.[12]
Colonists also wanted a canal that would ease the journey to and from the Atlantic Ocean by means of connecting Albemarle Sound and the Chesapeake Bay. By linking these two waterways it would allow for faster and safer traveling. The idea for the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal was conceived in the early 1700s, but it would not become a reality until well after the American Revolution. The construction began in 1855 by using steam dredges. Completed four years later in 1859, the canal measured the width of forty feet with a depth of six feet that allowed for large scale vessels including row galleys and brigs. Within the canal there were two cuts and one lock—what is known today as the Great Bridge Locks.[13]
In 1913, the United States government purchased the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal in order to create a continuous inland waterway route. Once under the control of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, improvements to the canal began and the usage toll ceased. This transition created new competition for the Dismal Swamp Canal and led to larger commercial ships using the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal; smaller recreational boats continued to use the Dismal Swamp Canal as their main passage. Ultimately the United States purchased the Dismal Swamp Canal in 1929. Both canals continue to be used today. The Great Bridge Locks provide passage for around nine thousand vessels a year, while the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal is responsible for the transportation of over one million tons of cargo each year.[14]
Waterways continue to play a significant role in Hampton Roads, and all over the world. To learn more about the history of Hampton Roads and its waterways, as well as the Battle of Great Bridge in the American Revolution, please stop by the Great Bridge Battlefield and Waterways Museum located in Chesapeake, Virginia. The museum opened to the public on June 19th, 2020, and has many new exhibits, special events, and educational programs for the public to explore and enjoy.
We would like to give special thanks to Elizabeth Goodwin, the Executive Director of the Great Bridge Battlefield & Waterways History Foundation, who sponsored Lauren’s internship in the summer of 2022. We are very grateful that she provided her time and expertise on this research project, and we thank her for her exceptional mentorship of Lauren.
About the Author
Lauren Tamayo is a history major and museum studies minor at Christopher Newport University (Class of 2023). She completed a 140-hour service-learning internship at Great Bridge Battlefield & Waterways Museum during summer semester 2022, where she gained invaluable skills in many facets of museum work–from marketing and advertising to cataloging artifacts and creating educational packets. After she graduates, she plans to pursue a career in public history.
Notes
[1] Harry M. Ward, The American Revolution: Nationhood Achieved, 1763-1788 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 70-71.
[2] Edwin L. Combs, “Trading in Lubberland: Maritime Commerce in Colonial North Carolina.” The North Carolina Historical Review 80, no. 1 (2003): 1–3. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23522582.
[3] Hampton Roads includes the following cities and counties: Virginia Beach; Norfolk; Chesapeake; Newport News; Hampton; Portsmouth; Suffolk; Williamsburg; Poquoson; Franklin; James City County; York County; Gloucester County; Isle of Wight County; Currituck County, NC; Gates County, NC; Mathews County; Southampton County; Camden County; and Surry County. Tim McGlown, “What’s in a Name?” The Virginian Pilot, 6 June 2008; Peter Crawford Stewart, “The Commercial History of Hampton Roads, Virginia, 1815-1860.” Order No. 6803127, (University of Virginia, 1967), 2-4.
[4] John Fitzhugh Millar, American Ships of the Colonial and Revolutionary Periods. (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 293.
[5] John Fitzhugh Millar, American Ships of the Colonial and Revolutionary Periods. (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 155-157.
[6] Howard I. Chapelle, The History of American Sailing Ships. (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1935), 54-55.
[7] Howard I. Chapelle, The History of American Sailing Ships. (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1935), 15-17.
[8] Oscar Theodore Barck and Hugh Talmage Lefler, Colonial America. (New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1958), 7-9.
[9] William H. Siener, “Charles Yates, the Grain Trade, and Economic Development in Fredericksburg, Virginia, 1750-1810,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 93, no. 4 (1985): 409–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4248842.
[10]Julia Cherry Spruill, Women’s Life & Work in the Southern Colonies. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972, 8-12.
[11] Charles Royster, The Fabulous History of the Dismal Swamp Company: A Story of George Washington’s Times. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, 1-20.
[12] To this day the Dismal Swamp Canal is used by people for a variety of purposes, but only contains two of the original seven locks. Marcus P. Nevius, City of Refuge: Slavery and Petit Marronage in the Great Dismal Swamp, 1763-1856. (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 2020), 5-6.
[13] Alexander Crosby Brown, Juniper Waterway – A History of the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal. (Norfolk: Norfolk County Historical Society, 1981). Pamphlet from the Wallace Room Collection, Great Bridge Battlefield and Waterways Museum. Chesapeake, Virginia.
[14] Wall text, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Protecting a Vital Resource, M2, Great Bridge Battlefield and Waterways Museum, Chesapeake, VA.
