Esek vs Hopkins :: essays research papers

The birth of the United States Navy on 13 October 1775 formed a defensive measure in response to the suppuration need to protect the commerce of a developing nation from the hence largest navy in the world, the British fleet. Esek Hopkins, the brother of a powerful Rhode Island political leader found himself selected as the first Commander in Chief of the Continental Navy. During the French and Indian War, Hopkins quickly emerged as an set aboutd merchantman as well as a participant in the profitable privateering of British commerce vessels. On Hopkins first mission as Commander in Chief, he found himself in a bind and resorts to his skills as a privateer rather than a Continental naval officer. Years later on the United States continued to have problems with commerce raiders, this time with the Barbary Pirates of the Mediterranean Sea. A young man, the son of a Revolutionary privateer, became the answer to this problem he was known as Stephen Decatur. Decatur led many successf ul missions in the Mediterranean and became famous for his leadership and heroism. A comparison of the careers of Hopkins and Decatur proves that the success of naval leaders depends not only upon their skill as mariners, but also upon experience, judgment, and luck. some(prenominal) Hopkins and Decatur came from seafaring families and were skilled sailors, but Decaturs experience as a naval officer gave him an advantage over Hopkins. After ten eld as a shipmaster on the West Indies Route, Hopkins proved his naval fine art as a successful privateer during the French and Indian War, indicating that he was as good a warrior as a trader. However, his lack of experience showed in his battle with the Glasgow, where he exercised little control over the ships inwardly his command, operating as privateers rather than as a fleet. While Decatur had few years at sea, he had more military skill than Hopkins chiefly because he garnered his experience within an organized navy rather than as a privateer operating independently. As a result, one could need Decatur to be more successful in organized naval battles than Hopkins. Decatur did not necessarily show better judgment than Hopkins, but his lapses of judgment seemed more popularly acceptable. Hopkins did not adequately consider political context in his decision-making. His actions in leaving the southern colonies unprotected in order to intrigue a fort in the Bahamas and his offering of the spoils to the northern colonies without consulting Congress showed his insensitiveness to the need of the new nation to overcome separatism.