• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Captain Seabury's Monster

He doesn't give an exact time the serpent went down with ropes & drags attached but it's before 4pm, then at 4am next morning they haul it up & it's still alive. More than twelve hours underwater for an air breather..

Add in the rest of the details dug up by Enola & it's nothing more than a ripping good yarn. Probably sold a good few copies of the newspapers that day though.
Im just watching a programme about snakes, they mentioned that the sea crate, a sea snake, can survive underwater for 2 hours on a single breath, they are a small snake, so if we scale up the size of the crates lungs to that of a 103ft sea serpent, we could estimate a 12 hour dive may not be impossible. IF the story has any truth in it.
 
The Alaska Shipwrecks website lists the Monongahela and provides this transcription of relevant documentation from the January 1855 Sailor's Magazine ...
MONONGAHELA (1853) The 497 ton whaling ship Monongahela was lost with all hands some time in 1853 in the Aleutian Islands. The Monongahela had sailed out of New Bedford MA October 1, 1850 on a whaling voyage with Captain Jason Seabury at the helm. She was valued at $35,000 with cargo at the time of the disaster. The following are excerpts from the January 1855 Sailor’s Magazine:

“Would that I could make as favorable report respecting the whale ship Monongahala, Capt. Seabury. This vessel was missing last year. No definite information could be obtained respecting her fate. Although it was supposed she was lost, about the time that she attempted to leave the Arctic Ocean. She was seen during a severe gale, but subsequently nothing was heard from her, until as report says, a cask of her sails and some of her spars have been picked up at sea…Capt. Percival reports that…About 100 miles south of Seguam, one of the chain of Fox Islands, fell in with two casks of oil. One of which he secured. It was a ground or second tier cask, bunged off, and had evidently come out of some ship, and not washed overboard. The head was marked with marking-irons S.C. and with white paint iron hoops. It had kelp grown on it and had apparently been in the water a long time. Also quite a number of pieces of ship’s plank floating about that bore every appearance of a wrecked vessel, from the manner in which they had broken off. It is Capt. P.’s opinion that they belonged to the Monongahela, the missing ship. He says there was a current report among the ships, from a French whaler, that last season, when beating out the 72nd passage in a gale of wind, he saw a ship off the lee quarter, which he knew to be the Monongahela; that with great difficulty he fetched by, and he thought the ship astern must have gone on. In addition to the above evidence that the Monongahela was lost, as supposed, on one of the Fox Islands, it is known that the Pocahontas picked up a cask of sails, marked Monongahela, and Capt. Jaggar, of the Emerald, now in port, picked up a cask of flags, supposed to belong to the same ship. Both these casks were picked up in the vicinity of the island on which the Monongahela is supposed to have been wrecked. Ed. Polynesian…There is a strong presumption that all on board must have perished. It is sad to reflect upon the probable fact that a whale-ship’s company of thirty and more souls, all gone down together, and not one surviving to tell the tale of sorrow.”

An interesting point to note is the tale that is attached to the Monongahela, although not related to her disappearance. The first of it was published in newspapers in New York and London in March of 1852. January 18, 1852 the Monongahela is reported to have encountered a “sea serpent” more than 100 feet long while becalmed near the equator. The crew managed to kill and behead the monster. The head was said to be 10 feet long and contain 94 curved teeth. Captain Seabury of the Monongahela had the head stowed aboard in a pine box. He wrote a detailed report of the incident and sent it ahead to New Bedford with another whaling vessel that was loaded with whale oil and bone and ready to return to port. The Monongahela then continued on to whaling in the Arctic. She never made port, and none of her crew survived. The story of the sea serpent survives to this day as a possible hoax or unexplained mystery.

Mapping and Location: Southwest Alaska 52 19 N 172 30 W Chart 16480

Comment: I have mapped this wreck at Seguam Island as it was mentioned in the 1855 Sailor’s Magazine article. WG

Sources: 1. Marine Disasters of the Alaska Route (January 1916) Pg 31, 2. Sailor’s Magazine and Naval Journal Volume 27 No 5 (January 1855) Pg 133

SOURCE: https://alaskashipwreck.com/shipwre...-shipwrecks-2/south-west-alaska-shipwrecks-m/
 
I was always suspicious about this story, even as a kid, due to the pathetic ease with which such a big and powerful creature. is dispatched.
The 'alleged' sea serpent was a lot smaller than a whale and the whaling ships had a deadly arsenal of weaponry with which to dispatch there quarry, including:

Bomb lance

From the 1850's onwards shoulder guns were used to shoot bomb lances at the whales. The bomb lances were filled with explosives and would explode soon after entering the body of the whale.

Along with many other hideous weapons listed in this link:

http://museumcollections.hullcc.gov.uk/collections/storydetail.php?irn=209&master=425
 
`Hideous` is a value judgement.

Better than gently poking the whale to death. (Which may annoy it and cause a hazard to the hunters...)

(Kudos to Hull museum for admitting we have a whaling industry in this country).
 
`Hideous` is a value judgement.
I think 99% of countries in the world do now agree that killing whales is not something we want to be doing any more. So it's a pretty common value judgement even if you don't subscribe to it?!
 
There's still some areas of mystery about the Monongahela's last voyage. According to the Whaling History site's database, the 1850 - 1853 voyage yielded the following results:
Sperm oil 83 (barrels)
Whale oil 2300 (barrels)
Baleen 36200 (pounds)
https://whalinghistory.org/?s=AV09968

This tally of delivered products clashes with the claim the ship never returned at all.

This suggests the Monongahela made port and delivered products at some point during the voyage. The database record gives no clues as to where or when this might have occurred.

I suppose it's conceivable the Monongahela put in to port one or more times during the overall planned voyage and off-loaded their haul(s). If they'd already been operating in the Pacific this might have happened at a west coast port instead of sailing all the way back to New Bedford.

I don't know enough about 19th century whaling practices to evaluate how realistic this supposition might be.
 
Just for the record, and to set some additional context for the story ...

Here is a global rendering of the lat / long coordinates at which the Captain Seabury letter claims the monster was caught.

The letter claims the location as: 3º 10' S / 131º 50' W

In current decimal notation this translates to: -3.16666667 / 131.83333333

Monon-Catch-Geo.jpg

https://www.google.com/maps/place/3...3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-3.1666667!4d-131.8333333
 
Just for the record, and to set some additional context for the story ...

Here is a global rendering of the lat / long coordinates at which the Captain Seabury letter claims the monster was caught.

The letter claims the location as: 3º 10' S / 131º 50' W

In current decimal notation this translates to: -3.16666667 / 131.83333333

Probably the most remote location on the planet!
 
Just for the record, and to set some additional context for the story ...

Here is a global rendering of the lat / long coordinates at which the Captain Seabury letter claims the monster was caught.

The letter claims the location as: 3º 10' S / 131º 50' W

In current decimal notation this translates to: -3.16666667 / 131.83333333


Ah, that looks like the Doldrums, or the Horse Latitudes - say no more.
 
Here's an illustration of the presumed Monongahela wreck sites (or areas) cited in various records noted earlier. Two of the islands cited (Atka and Seguam) are part of the Andreanof Islands (sub-group of the Aleutians), while the Fox Islands are a separate sub-group to the northeast of the Andreanofs.

Monon-Islands-A.jpg

The Monongahela was described as attempting to retreat from the Arctic Ocean in autumn 1853 as the seas iced up. Some accounts imply she was last seen trapped in ice or among ice masses. Other accounts state she was sailing south in gale conditions from the Arctic region to the Bering Sea between Alaska and Siberia. Debris attributed to the Monongahela was found on or in the vicinity of the islands to the south of the ship's last witnessed position(s).
 
Taking into consideration the illustrated locations for the monster encounter (per the letter) and the Monongahela's subsequent loss at sea, plus the timeline of events associated with the fatal voyage ...

There's no way the monster was captured in the remote South Pacific on 13 January 1852 and any letter from any Seabury made it to New York in time to be published in the New York Tribune 4 - 6 weeks later. Even if the letter had made it to a west coast port a week or two thereafter, there was no integrated transcontinental telegraph system nor Pony Express* that could have forwarded the news to New York in time for publication in February.

(* - Neither of these capabilities was available until the 1860s.)

If the claim the letter had been handed over to the Gipsy were true (ignoring the claim this was later denied by the Gipsy's crew or master) the arrival of the letter / news in New York is more plausible, but this would have required the Monongahela to have been in the Atlantic. There's no way the Monongahela made it into the Atlantic within days or a few weeks after the claimed date of the monster encounter.

This same problem pertains to the divergent claims that Seabury entrusted the letter to some other ship - usually described as another whaler returning home.
 
Last edited:
Another point ... The Monongahela's crew list is accessible via the Whaling History site / database at:

https://whalinghistory.org/?s=AV09968

Neither of the two crewmen's names mentioned in the alleged Seabury letter (Whittemore; Benson) appear in this crew listing.
 
The creature, as described, reminds me of basilosaurs (misnamed, elongated early whales) and mosasaurs (mesozoic marine monitor lizards), though there are problems with either identification, not least of all being the extreme size. Whatever else can be said about its affinities, it is clearly an air-breather and a vertebrate.

Although the reported site of the encounter was pretty far from major cities, a significant proportion of whaling at the time occurred in that general part of the globe. This fact lends credence to the idea that a whaling ship would be active there, and that it might encounter a fellow vessel. However, all the whaling traffic suggests that, if this encounter was not invented, then the creatures must have been quite rare to avoid other encounters, or at least reports.
 
The 'alleged' sea serpent was a lot smaller than a whale and the whaling ships had a deadly arsenal of weaponry with which to dispatch there quarry, including:

Bomb lance

From the 1850's onwards shoulder guns were used to shoot bomb lances at the whales. The bomb lances were filled with explosives and would explode soon after entering the body of the whale.

Along with many other hideous weapons listed in this link:

http://museumcollections.hullcc.gov.uk/collections/storydetail.php?irn=209&master=425

Bloody nasty but a 101 feet and from the description, a predator with huge jaws and teeth i still wouldn't fancy taking it on. It could probably damage the ship enough to sink it and make utter matchwood of the whale boats. Hench my leaning towards this being a tall tale.
 
As I said...a concern over `foolhardy`.

Maybe an exaggerated account of catching a Ziphidae? (Centre of the blooming Pacific is a fine place if you want a Catchalot...so I dont have any trouble with `in the middle of nowhere`).

But, -you are correct, a lot of holes in this story. Has anyone spoken to an archivist about this? Maybe they can access records not yet digitalised.

(its a grand story all the same).

I think 99% of countries in the world do now agree that killing whales is not something we want to be doing any more. So it's a pretty common value judgement even if you don't subscribe to it?!

I am in favour of whaling because whales are useful. (I like useful).

I am not in favour of pollution at sea, chemical or noise. The sea should be a safe place to keep useful animals in.

(I do not know where all that rubbish I saw on the beach came from; I suspect it was all over and not merely local. Since it was plastic I also suspect it might have been hanging around a long time...)

(This was visible plastic, not oil, chemicals, microplastics and derelict fishing gear; there is an awful lot of junk in the sea and I suspect these days, little way to clear it up).

(And then there was the VERY NOISY rib I saw...turns out the noisiest vessel on the sea is only there because of sea mammal tourism...)
 
I am in favour of whaling because whales are useful. (I like useful).

Yes - oil, corsets, food, 'scientific research'. I'm sure you've made use of them.

The sea should be a safe place to keep useful animals in.

That's quite a limited way of viewing the sea - kind of like a farm or maybe a zoo. Who decides which animals are useful, & useful to what - humans, other sea creatures?
 
Back
Top