Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

MUTINY

I first became aware of the word “mutiny” about 1936 when I was nine years old and went to see the movie “Mutiny On The Bounty” starring Charles Laughton as the harsh, infamous, cruel and arrogant Captain Bligh and Clark Gable as the dashing, reasonable, brave and virile Fletcher Christian. The film leaves little doubt as to who is the good guy and who is the bad ‘un. The screen play was based on the three novels by Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall (“Mutiny On The Bounty”, “Men Against The Sea” and “Pitcairn Island”) which I read almost immediately after seeing the movie.

So I gained the idea that mutiny was not a particularly bad thing—that it was a way of righting wrongs and that it was necessary sometimes to keep tyrannical Captains in line. I held this opinion until I happened to express it in 1941 in Mrs. Rogers history class. She lowered the boom on me. She said that mutiny was a heinous crime, that it was a usurpation of rightful authority and that we in America should be very proud that there had never been a mutiny in the history of the US Navy. It was just another thing that set us apart from those British sailors.

It never occurred to me that Mrs Rogers could be wrong. I don’t think that it ever occurred to her either. I went through another 64 years believing that there had never been a mutiny in the US Navy. I read the book “The Black Ship” by Dudley Pope and learned about the bloody mutiny aboard the H.M.S. Hermione in the British Navy. I read James Dugan’s “The Great Mutiny” which told of the time in 1791 when just about every ship in the British Navy anchored at both the Spithead and The Nore mutinied at the same time. All of this just reinforced the theory implanted by Mrs Rogers that mutiny was just un-American and particularly an English thing. Then I began to learn a few things that created just a bit of doubt about what Mrs. Rogers said.

For instance there was a ship in the U.S. Navy back in 1918, the “Robert M. Thompson” that had over a dozen crew members stage a protest about food and living conditions and simply sat down on the deck in defiance of an ensign’s order to go below. They were forcibly removed and clapped in irons. Was this a mutiny? According to the Navy it was not a mutiny but rather a case of “disobedience to a lawful order”. Bligh would have hung them, of course.

Four sailors of the US Naval Training Station were sentenced to the brig and extra duty for some minor infraction and were assigned to a work detail on the base. This was in 1920. They attacked their armed guard, hit him over the head with a pick handle, stole his pistol and escaped off the base.. They were recaptured shortly and tried for----mutiny? No. They were tried for “unauthorized absence and theft of government property (the guard’s gun). There was no mention of mutiny in their trial.

Then in 1922 there was the case of an ordnance barge in Chesapeake Bay. Part of the crew of the barge tapped a torpedo aboard and drained the straight grain alcohol and used it to fuel festivities at a party aboard the barge. They got a bit drunk and a bit loud and the Officer Of The Deck decided to break up their party. The O.O.D. was attacked with a fire ax and the party was finally broken up by the barge commander who was armed with a pistol and threatened to kill all concerned. Surely this was a mutiny. Nope! They were charged with being drunk on duty, threatening a superior officer, and conduct prejudicial to good order. It begins to appear that the reason there never has been a mutiny in the US Navvy is because the us Navy does not want a mutiny.

So it appears that Mrs. Rogers was technically correct and that there never has been a mutiny in the US Navy----and there probably never will be. It is un-American.

The informatioin above about the "Near mutinies" in the US Navy came from a book "Mutiny--A History Of Naval Insurrection" by Leonard Guttridge.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

The Hermione incident was a pretty bloodthirsty one if i remember. It would make a cracking film. Cert 18 obviously

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Insatiation
Posts: 9026

Dunno, the mutinies cited in the British navy were all a situation where a majority of the crew mutinied.
If every incidence of a handful of military folk disobeying orders or rebelling were termed mutinies, then there have been a lot more mutinies in the US and British navy than the ones mentioned here I'd wager.

I refused a direct order once. Did I mutiny? I don't think so.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 16306

My eldest brother refused a direct order, and when the officer giving the order struck him, assaulted the officer and put him in hospital. At court martial he was exonerated, as the order was patently illegal, and the Lt. involved was remanded for trial, at which he was cashiered. My brother finished his military career a year early with an honorable discharge. It wasn't the navy, but mutiny is not an exclusively naval concept.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 3

FYI...
US CODE Title 10,
§ 894. Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition

Release date: 2004-03-18

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

The way I read that it would be impossible to have a "mutiny of one person". The provision above clearly says "in concert with any other person". That seems a little odd to me. Even so all of the three inciudences that I listed above would be mutinies according to a strict interpretation of that article.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

In the Hermione mutiny noted above every officer of the ship was killed. If I remember right Captain Pigott in command was killed by a boatswain's mate with a meat cleaver. Very few of the crew of the Hermione were ever caught and tried for their mutiny. Most of them joined the winning side in a Venzuelan revolution and became respectable Venzuelan citizens.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 16306

It seems to me that very early in the history of this nation there was a mutiny aboard a warship, led by a very junior officer dreaming of becoming a dashing pirate. The mutineers were discovered and hanged after a court martial aboard the ship. It caused a huge stink upon the vessels return to its home port (NYC) and resulted in a massive investigation. It seems the midshipman leader of the mutiny was the son of the Secretary of the Navy. Been a very long time since I read about that, so I am unclear on the specifics such as names, but I know Paul Harvey has used it in his "The Rest of the Story".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

You are quite right SS. I remember the same story with one slight variation. In my memory they were shot rather than hanged. At any rate the commander of the vessel who had ordered the execution at sea was not welcomed home by the public or the higher command of the Navy. Everyone seemed to think that he executed the "mutineers" at sea rather than bringing them hoime because he was afraid of their testimony.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 16306

Yet the official investigations, all three of them, exonerated the capt, and found his summary executions justified under the conditions the ship was in.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 3

Mutiny seems to be broken up into smaller offenses. However there is article 94. "MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct. "
Basically says the same as the US Code. However, I do not think a court marshal can seriously consider bringing someone under this article in the aforementioned instances when the other articles are able to cover them. I’m assuming it has to be a very blatant offence but how blatant I do not know.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged