America Had Whistleblowers Before It Had a Constitution
Whistleblowers reveal the truth, and they deserve to be protected
War inevitably includes war crimes. The American Revolution, despite its rosy depiction as the war on which Americans fought on the side of right for their own independence, was no exception. When the Continental Navy was formed in 1775, its first commander would eventually lose the job in part because ten whistleblowers told the truth about his mistreatment of British prisoners of war.
Continental Navy Commander Esek Hopkins: Former Slave Ship Captain
Commodore Esek Hopkins was appointed first commander of the Continental Navy in late 1775. His wartime service would prove controversial, but Hopkins was a captain who was already well acquainted with controversy. During his early career, he was best known for his work on slave ships. In 1764, he was in charge of a mission on the Sally, a ship owned by Providence shipping firm Nicholas Brown and Company. (Never mind that the state of Rhode Island had passed an antislavery statute way back in 1652; it was roundly ignored.)
Hopkins’s mandate in 1764 was to deliver a rum cargo to West Africa and to obtain a load of African slaves, whom he was instructed to sell in the West Indies on his return voyage. On that return voyage, 109 of the 196 enslaved people he was in charge of transporting would die. The financial return on the remaining slaves was not sufficient to make the voyage profitable, and in an ironic twist, the failure of Hopkins to make good on his bosses’ investment actually led to several of the Brown brothers (but not all) leaving the slave trade for good.
Named the Head of the Navy, Esek Hopkins Ignored His Orders
Esek Hopkins was, however, a well-connected man. His brother, Stephen Hopkins, had been governor of Rhode Island and would go on to be one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence. When the time came, in December of 1775, to put someone in charge of the newly formed Continental Navy and help protect American ships from the British, the person who was put in charge was Hopkins. He was named the Commander in Chief of the Continental Navy, as approved by the Continental Congress.
Almost immediately, he proved that he was not very good at following the orders given to him by Congress or by General George Washington. Sometimes this went well, as when he was ordered by Congress to take his eight-ship navy to Chesapeake Bay in Virginia to engage the British, but instead sailed South to the Bahamas, where he believed his small force would be much more effective. A successful battle followed at the March 1776 Raid of Nassau, where Hopkins and his forces were victorious against the Brits, and gained ammunition and weaponry the young navy desperately needed.
The stage was set for a triumphant return to New London, Connecticut, but along the way, Hopkins’s multiple ships met up with the HMS Glasgow in April of 1776. Although the Glasgow was a British ship with only twenty guns, it was able to evade capture by Hopkins and the multiple ships under his command. This event would tarnish his record and set the backdrop for future criticisms of his skills. After the Glasgow incident, Hopkins would meet with General George Washington — the first meeting between the two of them — on April 8, 1776. Washington wanted to better coordinate the actions of his army and Hopkins’s navy, which evidently was not of the same concern to Hopkins, as, shortly after this meeting, he and his ships instead returned to Providence, in Rhode Island.
This insubordination did not go unnoticed by Congress, and in May of 1776, his actions were investigated by a committee headed by John Adams. Among other questions raised about his conduct were the charges that he unfairly distributed many spoils of war to his own home state of Rhode Island. The committee and Congress soon found too many irregularities to ignore and formally censured him on August 12, 1776.
To be fair to Hopkins, it has been noted that his job as commander of the new Navy was not easy. At that time, independent ships, or privateers, had also been authorized to fight the British and were allowed to keep the profits from any British ships they captured, meaning that sailors on such private ships received more pay than military leaders in the new naval service. Hopkins, therefore, had to face an uphill battle trying to recruit sailors for the few ships his navy had.
Ten Brave Whistleblowers
More controversy would surround Esek Hopkins in 1777.
In February of that year, no fewer than ten of the sailors under Hopkins’s command on the ship Warren filed a petition of complaint against him, charging him with defying Congressional orders and for treating British prisoners on board the ship in a “most inhuman and barbarous manner.”
This is part of the petition that these early American whistleblowers wrote and submitted to Congress:
“We are personally well acquainted with the real character and conduct of our commander, commodore Hopkins & we take this method not having a more convenient opportunity of sincerely & humbly petitioning, the honorable Marine Committee that they would inquire into his character & conduct, for we suppose that his character is such & that he has been guilty of such crimes as render him quite unfit for the public department he now occupies, which crimes, we the subscribers can sufficiently attest.”
Think about that for a moment. Ten naval sailors and marines*, all engaged in the war against Great Britain, decided that they could no longer be silent about the wrongdoing of their boss, their Commodore, who also happened to be deeply connected, particularly within Rhode Island, to other wealthy and powerful individuals.
The petition was successful. Congress deliberated on the matter and found, in March of 1777, that there was sufficient evidence to suspend Esek Hopkins from his command. Less than a year later, on January 2, 1778, Hopkins was removed from his post as commander of the American Navy, and his military service was terminated.
Two of the Whistleblowers Are Thrown in Jail
All ten of the petition signers were noteworthy for their bravery and their decision to inform Congress of what they felt were serious, serious problems in Hopkins’s (mis)use of his command. Among them were two men, also from Rhode Island, just like Hopkins, but who did not come from such well-connected families. Their names were Richard Marven** and Samuel Shaw.
Why focus on Richard Marven and Samuel Shaw?
Because their cases illustrate one of the harshest aspects of nearly all whistleblowers’ stories. Whistleblowers blow the whistle and expose secrets that nobody else would be in a position to know. This is rarely well accepted by the people in power who are interested in keeping those secrets. Almost all whistleblowers experience extreme retaliation, in a variety of forms, for daring to expose wrongdoing.
This would certainly be the case with Richard Marven. Although Congress acted throughout the case to censure, suspend, and eventually remove Hopkins from command with relative swiftness, Hopkins heard of Marven’s involvement with the petition almost immediately. Marven was a third lieutenant under Hopkins’s command, and Hopkins would consider him to be one of the worst agitators in the affair. Hopkins had him arrested on the ship and charged with signing “scurrilous papers” against his commander on April 3, 1777 — before news of Hopkins’s suspension had even reached him.
Marven was nearly immediately tried in a court-martial that was breathtaking in its unfairness: the court was filled with Hopkins’s supporters (including his own son), and if Marven was found guilty, the only person to whom he could appeal would be his (still) Commander in Chief, Esek Hopkins. During the trial, Marven admitted he had signed the petition, was found guilty of insubordination, and expelled from the Navy.
Hopkins’s rage and retaliation against the signers of the petition would not end there. On January 13, 1778, he sued all ten of the petition’s signers for conspiracy and criminal libel. Again, Richard Marven would receive some of the worst of Hopkins’s wrath, along with co-signer Samuel Shaw. Because both Marven and Shaw were residents of Rhode Island in 1778, the filing of Hopkins’s suit against them meant they could be arrested and thrown into jail in that state.
Marven and Shaw were not connected and were not men with large financial resources. A high bail was set and in jail the two remained until July 1778.
The American Congress Supports Those Who Exposed Wrongdoing
Having come this far, though, Marven and Shaw were not going down without a fight. Even if that fight had to be conducted in as civilized a manner as writing a letter to Congress. On July 8, 1778, they did just that.
In their letter, the two told Congress that they were two individuals who had, until the Hopkins incidents, served their country in wartime, and who were in jail only because they had done what they thought was right. They pointed out that they were without means and connections, and therefore would languish in jail until such time as, well, nobody knew when they might be released, exonerated, or further punished.
How did Congress respond?
On July 30, 1778, Congress responded with one of the most important precedent-setting decisions in world and whistleblower history. The group passed a resolution that recognized whistleblowing as an important safeguard to democracy. The act that Congress passed included this wording:
“That it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors, committed by any persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.”
Citizens of America, in other words, not only had the right to ask questions and tell the truth about any misconduct they saw, but it was also their duty.
The Congress of 1778 did not stop at passing their pro-whistleblowing resolution. They also directed that the new nation of America would itself pay for the legal defense of both Shaw and Marven in the Rhode Island courts. The two were also provided with all of the information and testimony that the government had thus far gathered on Esek Hopkins, and that information proved vital to their defense. After a five-day trial, the jury ruled for them and they were vindicated. Hopkins was ordered to pay for their court costs.
The saga was over and precedent recognizing the important contributions of whistleblowers in reporting corruption and wrongdoing was set.
Whistleblowers Are Essential to American Democracy
History is rarely straightforward. Reading different sources about Esek Hopkins can lead to wildly different interpretations of his wartime actions and his skills as a maritime commander. Likewise, there is evidence that Samuel Shaw and two other of the original signers of the petition against Hopkins at one time recanted their signatures, and indicated that they had been put up to their actions by “some gentlemen of the town [Providence].” It is hard to know exactly what happened on all of the ships Hopkins commanded, and it is difficult to find descriptions of the cruelty with which he treated British war prisoners, although enough of the petition signers spoke to examples of his uneven and unpredictable temper and conduct to indicate that there must have been some truth to those charges.
Piecing together accurate pictures of the truth, in history or in general, is difficult. This is one of the many reasons that all individuals in a society are particularly indebted to whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are not typically investigative journalists out to tell a sensational story; they are not outsiders simply looking to cause trouble. Neither are they usually snitches, nor people who deliberately set out to be disruptive.
Like Richard Marven and Samuel Shaw, they are most often people going about their business and working their jobs when they chance to see or learn something that they feel everyone needs to know. Not everyone in revolutionary America could go what was going on onboard its naval ships…until, that is, ten people told them, and Congress decided to listen and further investigate their charges.
The Constitution of the United States of America was declared to be in force from March 9, 1789. But another important aspect of American democracy — the duty of those with inside information to share it (and the duty of all citizens to listen to and evaluate that information) — was established on July 30, 1778.
Footnotes
*All ten of the signers should be recognized for their participation: John Grannis, George Stillman, Barnabas Lothrop, Roger Haddock, James Sellers, John Reed, John Truman, James Brewer, Richard Marven, and Samuel Shaw.
**Richard Marven’s last name is sometimes spelled as “Marvin” in different historical sources.
Sources
Boisson, Steve. “The First Whistleblowers,” History.net [accessed 10 January 2021].
“The Constitution,” The White House [accessed 10 January 2021].
Davis, Paul. “Slavery in Rhode Island,” USA Today Network [accessed 10 January 2021].
“Esek Hopkins,” Wikipedia [accessed 10 January 2021].
Frayler, John. “Privateers in the American Revolution,” National Park Service [accessed 10 January 2021].
Harris, Gordon. “The Whistleblower,” in Historic Ipswich [accessed 10 January 2021].
Kohn, Stephen Martin. The New Whistleblower’s Handbook. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press, 2017, pp. 327–333.
Kohn, Stephen M., “The Whistle-Blowers of 1777,” New York Times, 12 June 2011 [accessed 10 January 2021].
“Richard Marven,” Wikipedia [accessed 10 January 2021].
“Samuel Shaw,” Wikipedia [accessed 10 January 2021].
“Slavery and the Slave Trade in Rhode Island,” John Carter Brown Library [accessed 10 January 2021].
Stanger, Allison. “America Needs Whistle-Blowers Because of People Like This.” The Atlantic, 25 September 2019.
Stanger, Allison. Whistleblowers: Honesty In America from Washington to Trump. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019.
“Stephen Hopkins,” Wikipedia [accessed 10 January 2021].
Weber, David P. “Blowing the Whistle: An American Tradition,” The Hill [accessed 10 January 2021].
