The following description has been prepared entirely by the current owner, Roberts S. Fastov, Esq., and, at the collector’s request, has not been edited by Sloans & Kenyon

Note 1) The biography of Stephen Decatur by Elisabeth Wilson on the website “Founders of America.org is entitled: “A GALLANTER FELLOW NEVER STEPPED A QUARTER DECK, THE STORY OF STEPHEN DECATUR” and contains the following introductory paragraph: “In 1820, America had many heroic men, but one was considered the greatest hero of all. He had helped define a new and growing U.S. Navy, fought heroically through four wars, battled pirates, dueled with fellow officers to protect his honor, and received the fame, fortune, and recognition for his great deeds from the country he loved so well. He was Commodore Stephen Decatur, Jr.“

Per this lengthy biography, which will be quoted extensively herein, "Decatur joined the U.S. Navy, whose father was a commodore in the U.S. Navy, as a midshipmen in 1798. After fighting battles against the French in 1798-1799, Decatur was promoted to the position of First Lieutenant in 1801 on the U.S. Essex, which was the start of Decatur’s participation in the U.S. fight against the Barbary pirates off the north coast of Africa."

The Wilson biography continues:

“In 1803, the Navy led a blockade on all ports in Tripoli. Philadelphia, commanded by William Bainbridge, was captured by the Tripolitans and kept in Tripoli Bay to be used against American ships. The captain and crew were housed in the Tripoli jail. To prevent Philadelphia from being used by the Tripolitans when the Americans attacked the city, Decatur, now serving on Constitution, took a smaller ship, the expendable Intrepid, and loaded her with gunpowder. On the night of February 16, 1804, Intrepid snuck into the Tripoli harbor. Climbing aboard Philadelphia, Decatur and his men set fire to the ship, killing nearly 20 Tripolitans, but injuring only one American. Decatur escaped victorious into the night. The burning of Philadelphia was called “the most bold and daring act of the age,” earning Decatur a promotion to Captain (at 25, the youngest in the Navy) and a sword issued by Congress…. On August 3, 1804, Decatur, still stationed in Tripoli, was a part of an attack led in Tripoli Harbor. Throughout the battle he captured several ships, climbing on board and fighting in hand-to-hand combat. Decatur’s younger brother, James, was also in the fight. James had just pulled up beside a surrendered Tripolitan ship, but was killed as he started to board. Decatur heard the news, and leaving his own Tripolitan prize and taking eleven of his crew, searched for the ship that killed his brother. Finding it, he boarded, and began to a hand-to-hand fight with her captain. From behind, a Tripolitan fighter moved to attack Decatur. Seeing this, one of his men, Daniel Frazier, put his head above Decatur’s to receive the blow, so his captain could live and conquer. Though he lost a brother, Decatur won his battle…. Decatur commanded several other ships during the war, including Argus, Constitution, and Congress until peace was declared between Tripoli and the United States on June 3, 1805.”

Decatur remained in the Navy. “In 1809, Decatur gained command of United States, the ship upon which he began his naval career, after the embargo was replaced by a non-intercourse act with Great Britain. Decatur drilled and trained his crew for battle while a country anxiously waited and watched for another war….On June 18, 1812, Congress declared war on Great Britain. Decatur sailed in United States to the east hoping to attack an East India Company merchantman or escort of the British. On October 25, 1812, the United States came across HMS Macedonia. United States, a more powerful ship with more men, firearms, and ammunition than Macedonia opened fire on the smaller frigate. Macedonia and her crew were ripped to shreds. United States stopped firing and Macedonia surrendered. Thirty-six of her crew (including impressed American sailors) were killed, and sixty-eight were wounded, while only 13 of United States’ crew were killed or wounded. Captain Carden of Macedonia went aboard United States to give up his sword to Decatur, who was casually dressed in homespun cloth and a straw hat. But Decatur told him, “Sir, I cannot receive the sword of a man, who so bravely defended his ship…. United States returned to NY with its prize, where they were greeted with much rejoicing and a song: ‘Then quickly met our nation’s eyes/The noblest sight in nature/A first-rate frigate as a prize/Brought home by brave Decatur’”

“The next day four British ships were sighted and followed President. The ships caught up with Decatur whose sprung masts barred his ship from going any faster. Though he fired and defeated one ship, the other three overpowered him, damaging his ship, killing 24 and wounding 55 of his men. The twice-wounded Decatur surrendered his ship. Because of Decatur’s earlier kindness to Captain Carden of Macedonia, he and his crew were treated with equal kindness. They were returned to New London in February of 1815, two months after the war with Britain ceased.” As the war with the English ended, “Congress declared war with Algiers in March of 1815.

“Decatur was in command of a squadron sent on May 20, 1815 to negotiate with the Dey[of Algiers] He captured two ships, Mashuda and Estedio off the coast of Spain, then sailed on to Algiers, where he met with the Dey Omar (Hadji Ali had been murdered by his own soldiers a few months earlier). A treaty was constructed ending all tribute paid to Algiers, the release of all captives held by each side, with $10,000 paid to the Dey for Edwin and previously captured Algerian ships restored to their country. Decatur then sailed to Tunis to demand $46,000 in return for two prize ships taken during the war. The Bey of Tunis yielded when he learned it was Commodore Decatur demanding the money. Decatur proceeded to Tripoli for the same reason and again was successful.”

“Decatur at last returned to his home and his [wife] Susan on November 12, 1815. He accepted a position in the Board of Navy Commissioners where he would decide Navy regulations, determining class of ships and personnel requirements.” This required Decatur to move to Washington, D.C. In 1819, using his prize money from captured ships, Decatur bought eleven lots near the newly-constructed White House. The Decaturs acquired Benjamin H. Latrobe, architect of the Capitol, as their designer, requesting he build them a house “suitable for a foreign ministers” and “impressive entertainments” on the northwest corner of Lafayette Square. Here Decatur, [his wife] Susan, and his sister’s daughters…lived in a fashionably comfortable state, entertaining frequently.”

Because of his sense of honor, Decatur fought a duel with James Barron, a U.S. Naval officer, who Decatur had fairly criticized for his bad performance in such capacity, on March 22, 1820 in Bladensburg, Maryland, at which he was mortally wounded and died that night at his home, Decatur House. “The National Intelligencer Newspaper wrote: “A hero has fallen! Commodore Stephen Decatur, one of the first officers of our Navy--the pride of his country--the gallant and noble-hearted gentleman--is no more! He expired a few minutes ago of the mortal wound received in the duel yesterday. Of the origin of the feud which led to this disastrous result we know but what rumor tells. The event, we are sure, will fill the country with grief. Mourn, Columbia! For one of the brightest stars is set--a son ‘without fear and without reproach’--in the freshness of his fame--in the prime of his usefulness-has descended into the tomb….Decatur’s funeral was attended by officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps of the United States, Commodore Rogers and Commodore Porter, President James Monroe, former President James Madison, the Cabinet, members of the Senate, House, Supreme Court, Foreign ministers, consuls of foreign powers, citizens, family, men who had served under him, and Susan, the one who loved him most.”

Wilson observed: “All of his life, Decatur saw himself and carried himself as a hero. No hypocrite, he lived up to the high expectations he demanded of others, and seemed unable to understand why others did not. Decatur House Museum Curator Bruce Whitmarsh described him as a man who “…thought of himself in those terms, in the big terms, …but it was part of his ideal and belief of putting nation ahead of self, and…that’s how he thought of himself, that he was more important as somebody serving the nation than somebody serving himself. And it ended up sort of Decatur the hero became Decatur the man as well.”

Wilson concluded her lengthy Decatur biography with the following observations:

“Stephen Decatur was a true hero. A man of honor, he joined the young United States Navy to be near the sea he loved so much, fighting continually and successfully on behalf of his country and protecting her from any unjust wrongs. He was modest, kind, considerate, even to his enemies in battle. Despite his inability to tolerate or be tactful about the failings of others, he was a man who believed only the best of most people, even to his own detriment. He loved his “little wife” passionately, and his honor and his country just as much. It was his tactlessness that led to his quarrel with Barron, his stubborn honor that led him to the dueling field and his willingness to have faith in Bainbridge’s character that led him to accept Bainbridge as his second, and so cost him his life. For honor he gave up all: his life, his beloved wife, and his chance to continue serving the county he so loved.

Decatur was a man who formed our country, who fought to take her from a weak and struggling nation to a superior force in the world. During his life, he changed the face of history by winning battles and protecting American rights at sea, directly contributing to America’s victories over Great Britain, France and the Barbary States. After the wars, his career was far from over, and there were many paths he might have followed, perhaps even into the White House as our first Naval President. When he died, he also changed the face history by choosing honor over service, a helpless choice enabled by a conspiracy to remove him from what would most likely have been continued success in his service to America. He changed the face of history by disappearing from it.

In 1820, America lost her one great hero. As his good friend Washington Irving once said of him: ‘A gallanter fellow never stepped a quarter deck…God bless him (Emphasis added)."

Per Wikipedia, Decatur’s Legacy is:

“For his heroism in the Barbary Wars and the War of 1812 Decatur emerged as an icon of American Naval history and was roundly admired by most of his contemporaries as well as the citizenry.

Five U.S. Navy ships have been named USS Decatur in his honor [USS Decatur (1840-1865); USS Decatur (Destroyer # 5), 1902-1920; USS Decatur (DD-341), 1922-1945; USS Decatur(DD-936, later DDG-31), 1956-2004; and USS Decatur (DDG-73), 1998-____ ].

At the urging of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.S. Post office Department issued a series of five stamps honoring the U.S. Navy and various naval heroes, Decatur being one of the few chosen, appearing on the 2-cent issue, along with fellow officer Macdonough.

An engraved portrait of Decatur appears on Stephen Decatur as depicted on a 1886 Silver Certificate on series 1886 $20 silver certificates.

Stephen Decatur's home in Washington, D.C. is a museum owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

At least 46 communities in the United States have been named after Stephen Decatur (Emphasis added)."

Note 2) The following biographical materials are taken from the Wikipedia website:

"Charles Bird King was born in Newport, Rhode Island as the only child of Deborah Bird and American Revolutionary veteran Captain Zebulon King. The family traveled west, but when King was four years old, his father was killed and scalped by Native Americans near Marietta, Ohio. His mother took her son to return to Newport, where they lived with her mother.^[1]

Detail of a self-portrait aged 30, 1815

When King was fifteen, he went to NY to study under the portrait painter Edward Savage. At age twenty he moved to London to study under the famous painter Benjamin West at the esteemed Royal Academy. King returned to the U.S. due to the War of 1812 after a seven-year stay in London, and spent time working in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Richmond.

He eventually settled in Washington, due to the economic appeal of the burgeoning city. In the nation’s new capital, the artist earned a solid reputation as a portraitist among politicians, and earned enough to maintain his own studio and gallery.^[2] King’s economic success in the art world, particularly in the field of portraiture, can be attributed to his ability to socialize with the wealthy celebrities, and relate to the well-educated politicians of the time: "His industry and simple habits enabled him to acquire a handsome competence, and his amiable and exemplary character won him many friends".^[3] These patrons included John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, James Monroe, and Daniel Webster.^[4] King’s popularity and steady stream of work left him with little reason or need to leave Washington.^[3] Despite his wealth and societal standing, the artist never married, and lived in Washington until his death on March 18, 1862.

Styles and influences

The Poor Artist's Cupboard, ca. 1815

Though King’s legacy lies in his portraiture, throughout his career he also demonstrated a great technical skill in still life, genre, and literary paintings. Scholars have thought he would have preferred to focus on these styles throughout his career, but he needed to earn a living, and the only money to be made within the art market of the United States in the early part of the 19th century was in painting portraits. His inclination towards genre and still life paintings can be traced back to his seven-year stay in London. The 16th and 17th-century style attributed to masters in Northern Europe, especially that of the Dutch and Flemish, was quite popular in the upper echelons of the art culture. While attending the Royal Academy, King was swayed towards the Dutch styles by the demand such works commanded, and also was able to see the works and learn from them. It is likely that through his schooling, he was able to study the British royal collection, as “Prince of Wales, and Regent, George IV collected Dutch art voraciously…” and the prints were the favored style at the time by other members of European royalty.

King took more than stylistic cues from these examples, as he also employed some of the techniques which he saw. As Nicholas Clark wrote in 1982, King “sometimes relied upon Dutch prints for formal solutions"^[5], as the prints provided a source of valued composition. As King’s formal education included seeing revered art from the Netherlands and surrounding regions, and many of his paintings include features that indicate influence of Dutch art, the artist may be seen to have derived his favor for genre and still life paintings from this style. As noted above, King incorporated the techniques of Dutch painting into his portraits, though he recognized that the United States was not yet as familiar the references to the style as it would be in the sphere of “post-Civil War materialism…^[3]".

Portrait of Senator William Hunter of Rhode Island, 1824

[Note that the depiction of the face and skin of Senator William Hunter is very similar to the depiction of Stephen Decatur’s face and skin in the above auction portrait, as is the depiction of the pose of the upper part of the body, even though the Hunter portrait depicts more of the bottom of the body and has the top of a chair in it] Beyond his specific connection to Dutch painting, King is known to have been especially committed to staying within the confines of the traditional style of painting which he learned in his youth: “it is apparent that the artist would adapt, time and again, traditional European mannerisms to his new and native subject matter”^[3].

While King completed a number of paintings that invoked Dutch painting technique, he is better known as an important figure in the 19th-century United States art world for his numerous portraits of Native Americans, commissioned by the federal government. He was also commissioned by the government for portraits of celebrated war heroes, and privately by the political elite, all to portray important men before the time of photography. Despite his popularity at the time, King is often overlooked in the broad scope of art history when placed amidst the talent of his contemporaries. His relative obscurity may be due in part to his lack of innovation in his work. It is also due to the loss of most of his numerous Indian portraits to a fire in the Smithsonian; his work simply disappeared, so he was overlooked in succeeding generations.

Native American portraits

Charles Bird King, Young Omahaw, War Eagle, Little Missouri, and Pawnees, 1821, now in the Smithsonian Institution.

The Smithsonian art historian Herman J. Viola notes in the preface to The Indian Legacy of Charles Bird King that he compiled the book was to acknowledge the importance of King, as well as his Native American subjects, as part of the creation of a federal collection of Indian portraits. The government, private collectors, and museums hold portraits by a number of talented United States’ painters, including James Otto Lewis and George Cooke. King’s work makes up a bulk of the Indian portrait collection, with more than 143 paintings done from 1822 to 1842^[6].

Thomas McKenney, who served as the United States superintendent of Indian trade in Georgetown and later as the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, initiated the government's commissioning of the portraits. Like many others, at the time he believed that the indigenous people were nearing extinction, and he was seeking ways to preserve their history and culture. He first tried to collect artifacts from various tribes, then thought of having portraits painted for the government. About this time, he met King, whose talent he appreciated. “The arrival of Charles Bird King on the Washington scene inspired the imaginative McKenney to add portraits to his archives.”^[6] King painted the subjects in his own studio, as McKenney easily obtained the consent for the portraits from Native American leaders coming to Washington to do business with the US through his new department. King’s 20-year role in painting works for the collection was profitable for the artist. He charged at least $20 for a bust, and $27 for a full-figure portrait, allowing him to collect an estimated $3,500 from the government^[6].

The portraits gained widespread publicity beyond Washington during this period as McKenney broadened his project by publishing a book on Native Americans. In 1829 he began what would become many years' worth of work on the three-volume work, History of the Indian Tribes of North America^[6]. The project featured the many portraits of Native Americans, mostly King’s, in lithograph form, accompanied by an essay by the author James Hall.

After the administration changed and McKenney left the BIA, the agency donated the Native American portrait collection to the National Institute, but shoddy care and displays kept it from the public eye^[6]. When the National Institute deteriorated, it gave its work in 1858 to the Smithsonian Institution^[6]. King's portraits were displayed among similar paintings by the NY artist John Mix Stanley, in a gallery containing a total of 291 paintings of Native American portraits and scenes. On January 24, 1865 a fire destroyed the paintings in this gallery, though a few of King’s were saved before the flames spread. Representations of many of the lost paintings have been found in McKenney’s lithograph collection that supported the book.

According to Askart.com, Charles Bird King’s art is held by 27 museums, including such major museums as the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, MA, the New York Historical Society, NYC, the National Gallery of Art, National Portrait Gallery and the Corcoran Gallery of Art, all of Washington, D. C..

Note 3) With virtually no fear of future contradiction, this portrait of Stephen Decatur, a very famous American Naval hero, is the only early 19^th century Stephen Decatur life portrait that is not in a public collection/museum, and, is the last original life portrait of Decatur by a major American portrait painter remaining in private hands. Stephen Decatur, as detailed above, was one of the greatest U.S. Naval heroes to serve this country and was the youngest person ever to be appointed a U. S. Navy Captain on February 16, 1804. All of the other extant Decatur oil portraits of the early 19^th century, which include those by Gilbert Stuart, Thomas Sully and John Wesley Jarvis and Charles Bird King, after Gilbert Stuart, plus an enamel on copper portrait miniature by William Russell Birch, all of which are in museums, were painted from the days post the war against the Barbary Pirates and the War of 1812. The Redwood Athenaeum and Library, Providence, Rhode Island, which owns the Charles Bird King portrait, after Gilbert Stuart, noted in an e-mail to Mr. Fastov that: "The portrait is not signed, which seems to be common with our Charles Bird King paintings. It was a gift to the Redwood Library by the artist, circa 1859." This auction portrait depicts Decatur in mufti (civilian clothes), in 1819-early, 1820. Compare this portrait of Stephen Decatur with the paintings of Decatur by these artists. The only noticeable difference is that this Decatur portrait was painted several years after the original portraits described above, which depict Decatur as a much more slender, very young man in naval uniform. In this portrait, Decatur has put on some weight since his career as an active commander of ships while in the U.S. Navy until 1816, when he became a U.S. Naval Commissioner in Washington, D.C. It was almost certainly painted shortly before his death at age 41 in Washington, D.C. from a duel in 1820 with a U.S. Naval officer, James Barron, who challenged Decatur to a duel.

Charles Bird King was a logical choice for Decatur to select to paint Decatur’s portrait, as King had already established himself in D.C. as the leading portrait painter of politicians and other important personages. As detailed below, King was born in Newport, Rhode Island and after studying with the portrait painter Edward Savage in NY, left to study under the portrait painter Edward Savage, per Wikipedia and “At age twenty he moved to London to study under the famous painter Benjamin West at the esteemed Royal Academy. King returned to the U.S. due to the War of 1812 after a seven-year stay in London, and spent time working in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Richmond. He eventually settled in Washington, due to the economic appeal that the burgeoning city offered. In the nation’s new capital, the artist earned a solid reputation as a portraitist among politicians, and earned enough to maintain his own studio and gallery. King never left Washington, D.C. He spent 20 years from 1822-1842 on a U.S. Government commission to paint portraits of Indians, who came to the city, beginning in 1821. The results became the basis of the National Indian Portrait Gallery. As noted above, most of the originals were burned in a catastrophic fire of 1865, along with the Indian portraits of John Mix Stanley, but King had painted some replicas and lithographic copies remain. Thus, in part, because of the scarcity; the realistic depiction of his Indian subjects in King’s oil portraits of American Indians, and the quality of King's portraiture, some of such Indian oil portraits fetch several hundreds of thousands of dollar at auctions. The King portrait of Ottoe Half Chief, Husband of Eagle of Delight (18 in. x 14 ½ in.), which brought a record of $1,352,000 on 12/1/2004 at Sotheby’s, NY as lot 137. See the auction records of this sale and of two other American Indian portraits that fetched $457,000 on 9/12/2007 and $385,000 on 5/24/1990 below. The first two of these auction lots were a slightly larger size than the Decatur portrait and the second lot, John Ridge, Cherokee Chief, which brought $457,000, which was painted on wood panel, had two full length vertical splits, one of which went through Ridge's face and body and the other ran through his body, and suffered from incredibly crude inpainting and other surface damage, as well.

This scarcity factor, which is even more applicable and important in the case of this portrait of Stephen Decatur, as it is virtually certain that this will be the last time that a private collector will be able to bid on and acquire an original portrait of Stephen Decatur, of the early 19^th century, which was executed by a major American portraitist, such as Charles Bird King, who was the leading portrait painter in Washington, D.C. for more than the first ½ of the 19^th century. Moreover, the subjects of these King American Indian portraits cannot even come close to the American historical significance and impact on America of Decatur, who was one of the first American Naval heroes and remains to this day in the pantheon of the greatest American Naval heroes. Auction records for King’s Indian portraits follow:

Title/Subject: Ottoe Half Chief, Husband of Eagle of Delight Inscribed. Oil on panel. 18 in. x 14.50 in. sold for by a major American portrait painter remaining in $1,352,000 on `12/1/2004 at Sotheby’s, NY

Title/Subject: John Ridge, Cherokee Chief Signed on Reverse. Oil on canvas. 17.50 in. x 13.20 in. sold for $457,000 on 9/12/2007 at Christie’s, NY

Title/Subject: Nesouaquoit, a Fox Chief Signature information not available. Oil on canvas. 35.50 in. x 29.50 in. sold for $385,000 on 5/24/1990 at Sotheby’s, NY

All of the foregoing factors, plus the details pertaining to Decatur's career and historic importance as a figure in American history, set forth above in Note 1), make clear that the above presale estimate of $1,000,000-$2,000,000 is reasonable and justifiable. It is necessary to reiterate what was stated at the outset of this note 1): "With virtually no fear of future contradiction, this portrait of Stephen Decatur, a very famous American Naval hero, is the only early 19^th century Stephen Decatur life portrait that is not in a public collection/museum, and, is the last original portrait of Decatur by a major American portrait painter remaining in private hands." Any serious collector of Decatur memorabilia, portraits by or of famous Americans or has any serious interest in American Naval history or American history or the Decatur House in Washington, D.C. should consider bidding vigorously for this portrait of Stephen Decatur.