Military history: North America / United States Unassessed

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force

âAn event mentioned in this article is a July 21 selected anniversary

As I understand it, the wooden keel of the ship is the only piece of the original Constitution remaining; all the rest of the ship has been replaced. Supposedly, when the keel is replaced, the ship will be considered to be a replica and not the actual Constitution. (I remember being told this when I took a tour of the ship some 15-20 years ago...)

That's crap. Consider: most of the molecules in your body are replaced over the years. Are you still the same person as the day you were born? Yes, of course. Identity comes not from actual skin or blood, not from replaceable planks and nails, but from the continuity of history. The Constitution has survived more than two centuries just because no single part is irreplaceable.

—Herbee 10:21, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

What?! My mother works on the Constitution. Having just mentioned this to her, she says that it's untrue. The Constitution has been repaired, yes, but most of the original ship is still there.Klassykittychick 00:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere I read that the Argo was preserved by the ancient Greeks for many centuries and continuously repaired, and that the philosophers argued about whether it was still the same ship or not. So maybe it's not a new discussion. :-) Stan 13:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it was the ship of Theseus, as reported by Plutarch: "The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same." Google "Argo puzzler" to see an amusing mail thread among classical scholars on all this... Stan 13:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...and once again our restaurant's cuisine is good enough for us to eat here instead of going out for lunch; see Ship of Theseus. Stan 14:16, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To: N328KF. You mention that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is not the same article as United Kingdom. Yes, that is true. The two articles duplicate the relevant facts. Linking the phrase United Kingdom to either will tell the reader what they need to know. The only difference is that one article is more universal.
Bobblewik 16:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not editin ship articles right now, but does anyone care to knead this into the dough? http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/constitution/sail200b.html

it's about the USS Constitution's birthday party... and if you really love her, try the lottery and win a chance to be aboard next July 4 for her turnaround cruise: http://ussconstitutionlottery.com/ every person in your household can enter once.Pedant 01:56, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

I don't mean to troll, but I find I think it may be a bit of a leap to claim the victory over the Java gave the US the "rank of a world-class naval power". It still only had a few frigates (admittedly very good ones), and no ships of the line. Perhaps "established the US Navy as a force to be reckoned with" or words to that effect?

3mta3 11:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It's not so much the victory over the Java as it is victory over Great Brittain; remeber that the United Kingdom had been in the buisness of naval combat a lot longer than the United States had; additionally, they were still the world's largest superpower, so the fact that our ship won (and won dramatically) made us able to compete with Great Brittian for control of the seas, thus establishing America with the "rank of a world class naval power". TomStar81 05:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's often pointed out by my friends across the pond that the Americans won their actions by heavier weight of broadside--but that begs the point. (The RN was huge in numbers and not to be beaten as a body by any Navy in the world) The USN won seven of eight sloop actions against the greatest navy in the world in one-to-one combat in addition to the 50-50 results in frigate actions. Those victories engenedered prestige on the world stage and induced Congress to expand the size of the USN. IMHO it is not a stretch to state the USN advanced to a world power--its ships roamed the world executing American foreign policy. Buckboard 09:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As you point out "IMHO", in other words it is POV! The US Navy never attempted to take on the Royal Navy in the same way that the French and Spanish did. They would have been mad to try. Despite the strength of the Constitution and other large frigates, in a pitched battle with a first, second or even third rate ship of the line, they would not have lasted long. But that is not what frigates are for. They are for attacking commerce, and destroying smaller and equal ships.

In modern terms, the US Navy is a world super power, its ships can defeat any other navy. The Royal Navy is a world class navy and could probably defeat any other navy except the USN. However, there are a lot of other navies out there which while not being able to challenge the more powerful ones directly, can project naval power worldwide provided the more powerful ones do not interfere. This was the situation for the USN in 1815. They could not take on the Royal Navy directly, but they could act worldwide provided the RN did not actively oppose them with maximum force. Does this make them a world power? Depends on your definitions. Dabbler 13:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add any information about a replica of Constitution? All I know is that a sea-going replica of USS Constitution was built for the filming of James Cruze's film Old Ironsides (1926) with assistance from the US Navy Department. Any further knowledge? --mervyn 12:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Information on Victory is in the intro and need not be repeated later in the text. Jinian 14:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I was looking at this article, and the information listed on the right has a "Don't Tread on Me" flag. Is this the flag of the USS Constitution, or of some larger political body? The image page itself didn't mention. (Image:Dtomjack large.png) Could that be added to a caption, or to a text description on the image page? -- Creidieki 03:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See First Navy Jack. Jinian 10:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, thanks. I see that the image page has been edited to include a link to the article, which I appreciate. -- Creidieki 14:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution herself is a ship of the line in the sense that she is a...4th Rate Ship Of The Line, IIRC. Not sure what this sentence adds (Though I wouldn't add in mention of 4th Rate as its a British measuring system, and I am sure carries negative connotation...just feel that this line is misleading). Would first rates be appropiate in this sentence, such as 'She was considered by many to be a capable opponent, even for First Rate Ships of the Line'? If so...how can we prove this? Britain deployed no first rate ships AFAIK to the Americas during the war of 1812, so isn't this just opinion, similar to someone putting 'Beckham beats the pants off Brazilian footballers' in a football article? --Narson 00:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crew:

    -back then-

540 men: 53 marines 30 young boys 20-30 officers

    -Now-

50-80 dedicated men

Speed:13+ knots

    boats onboard

1 long boat 36 ft. 2 cutters 30 ft. 2 whaleboats 28 ft. 1 Gig 28 ft. 1 Jolly 22 ft. 1 punt 14 ft.

-Fan of constitution-

Admittedly, O'Brian's novel is a work of fiction, but I think that he's always very carful about research and historical accuracy - in the author's note he states that the only liberty he has taken with regards to the action is to place his characters aboard. Comparing O'Brian's account with the report of Java's senior Lieutenant and Master, as reprinted in Dean King's A Sea of Words shows this clearly. To call the account fictionalised therefor seems to describe it as less than it is: a carefully researched depiction of the actual action. This is why I have rephrased the entery regarding O'Brian's Fortune of War. --Badger151 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any information on Lucy Brewer's three-year-stint on the Constituion back in 1812 to add to this? All I have is a one-sentence entry in my computer's encyclopedia which states that this woman disguised herself as a man named Nicolas Baker and served as a crew member of the Constitution. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Regarding the USS NEVERSINK: The mention of the NEVERSINK was referenced to the frigate USS UNITED STATES and not the frigate CONSTITUTION. Melville served on board the frigate USS UNITED STATES 1842-1844. The American frigate he refers to is the USS UNITED STATES. Melville served as an Ordinary Seaman and his station was in the foretop.

  I am: Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr.; Founder & President; USS UNITED STATES Foundation: USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com

I'm about to take out a poorly formatted link to a model maker that was added recently. If a decently formatted link is to go back in, I'd like some discussion here first. Thanks.--J Clear 00:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]