Progress on Nathan

Posted on by

Since my last, there has been tremendous progress on putting together the life of Nathan Tisdale and his family.  All of this has gone beyond anything published previously about the Tisdale family in genealogies, and thus far I am on schedule for publishing in the spring.  My hope of papers/letters by Nathan have not yet born fruition, so much of it has been by official documents and records… the side benefit is that, in my quest for accuracy, some local history is coming to light that had been long forgotten, or at least shoved into the shadows by other topics of local interest.  The towns of Lebanon, Norwich, and Bridgeport all come into play.

Next person in the focus…

Posted on by

Nathan Tisdale was the surgeon’s mate aboard the USS Connecticut.  I don’t have the extent of information for him like I do for others, but I’m trying to get a little volume of a bio done for him and out there.  What always makes this of keener interest is when a descendant reaches out with questions/information.  While I do have images for his father and brother, there does not seem to be a surviving image for Nathan, and this is true in most cases for these men.

Stay tuned on this, for I expect to get this done and published before the end of this summer… Now that I’ve already privately published Seth’s book.

 

FINALLY!

Posted on by

The proof copy of Seth’s biography has arrived!  It is slated to “go public” on Wednesday, 10 April 2024 (just a few days from now), at which time I’ll post the link here and on social media.

Dr. Nathan Tisdale

Posted on by

Recently I was contacted by a descendant of Nathan Tisdale – a Cindy Hoffman.  She has some information that do not, she being of the family, and what I’ve posted is of value to her.  I hope to bring my of the dear doctor to light; I am grateful to Cindy for giving me a nudge!

Meanwhile, the church – Christ Church Episcopal, Norwich, CT – has closed its doors for a couple of years now.  The state of the building is in limbo, and I am unsure if they intend to sell it or consider reopening it as a church at some future date.  I dearly hope that if will no longer serve as a church, then some form of museum for the city, what with all the graves beneath the sanctuary.

Recent question

Posted on by

Last month, a Mr. Tom Snow had sent me an email with a question I think is of interest to share herein.

<<I was curious if you had any information on how many guns the ship carried. I read she carried 26 12-pounders but heard you may have some information on the contrary? Also, was she of the same design as the USS Adams or General Greene? Both were rated at 24-guns but bumped up to 28 later.>>

My answer, for those of you interested, was as follows:

<< Hello Tom,
The USS CONNECTICUT was rated for 24 guns but pierced for and carried 26.  She certainly had 12-pdrs, but a curious comment entered into the log leads me to suspect that not all the guns were 12 pdrs…
.
On Monday, 16 September 1799, in New London, a Capt. Norris brought his vessel alongside to deliver the guns, which were brought on board the CONNECTICUT.  The size of the guns is not mentioned at this time, but the number was indeed 26.  She was indeed pierced for 26 and not refitted for the extra two. The guns had been brought up from NY (city) and delivered directly to the ship; had the guns been shipped on board before leaving the CT River, the vessel would not have been able to clear the sand bar which already had held the CONNECTICUT for several weeks too long.  The powder was stored in the magazine of Fort Trumbull at this time, and 6 cartridges were drawn and received by the ship’s gunner Samuel Johnson – these were cited as “for (the) 12 pr.”   In my experience in researching other vessels in this period, the proper statement, had they ALL been 12 pdrs, would have been “for the guns” and not cite the rating… unless it was different or distinct from the other guns.  Or, put another way, I suspect that the CONNECTICUT had another size in addition to a couple or so of 12 pdrs.  Given the common delivery of guns for a ship of her tonnage, it could be that the other guns were 9 pdrs with a couple or a few 12 pdrs, or maybe the common battery were 12 pdrs with a couple of 18s?  The USS GEN. GREENE had twenty four 12 pdrs and six 6 pdrs, so something similar?  With the reams of data I have at hand, I still cannot be certain.  So the “safe” answer is that they were 12 pdrs, but with a caveat.
.
Despite the commonly cited tonnage for the CONNECTICUT, the intended size varied during her construction.  But the time she was launched, and despite the intended size in letters from the Navy Office and the the Naval Agent Nehemiah Hubbard Jr, she was actually 548 tons and 36/95.  She was 12′ longer than the USS ADAMS at the time of her Quasi-War configuration and a foot longer than the USS GEN. GREENE.  I mourn that there seems to be no surviving “blueprint” of the CONNECTICUT, but given that the design was created by Seth Overton and modified along the way with input by the vessel’s captain and several ship builders, I think that she did not conform to the design one thinks about with the vessels you cite.  She was referred to as being “uncommon in appearance”, but by an officer disgruntled at his vessel having lost a race to the CONNECTICUT, so his observation is suspect.  She did have quarter galleries, which was at this time disappearing in “newer” designs, and it would also seem a raised quarter deck… looking more like a vessel of the RevWar period than of the sleeker designs by people such as Fox and Humphreys.>>