Clio’s Armada The 1893 Santa Maria and the 1492 Fleet

I recently covered the Viking ship replica which appeared at the 1893 Chicago Exposition, and feel I ought to give some space to the vessel(s) which Viking was in many ways a response to: the 1893 Santa Maria and other ships of Christopher Columbus.

“In 1893, the Spanish government built replicas of Christopher Columbus’ ships in honor of the quadricentennial of Columbus’ trip to North America.  The Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were sailed across the Atlantic Ocean – intended for the 1893 World’s Fair: Columbian Exposition in Chicago, which was dedicated to Christopher Columbus. ” (National Museum of the Great Lakes)

I made no secret in my post on Viking that I think Columbus is not worthy of veneration. Even apart from all the myths about him (no one thought the world was flat at that point), he was an oppressive and destructive figure to all Indigenous people he met.

But since his myths were propagated in a large part by Italian-Americans looking for a hero, it is interesting to look at the 1893 Columbian Exposition and the ships built by Spain for it – a Spain that would only a few years later be at war with the U.S. For specificity’s sake, we will look mainly at the Santa Maria, although it is hard to separate her from the Nina and the Pinta, replicas of which also featured in the 1893 Exposition.

There’s another reason I was curious about this build. My home town of Edmonton features West Edmonton Mall, once the largest mall in the world, and famously inside it is another (quite less impressive) Santa Maria replica.

Specifications

Even besides my bizarre mall carrack, there have been several replicas built of the Santa Maria, and because of the lack of specifications from the original (which ran aground off Haiti in 1492 on the return trip, and sank the next day) all of them have had slightly different sizes.

Wikipedia lists the estimates of the original at

Type	Carrack
Displacement	est. 150 metric tons of displacement
Tons burthen	est. 108 tons BM
Length	est. hull length 19 m (62 ft)est. keel length 12.6 m (41 ft)
Beam	est. 5.5 m (18 ft)
Draught	est. 3.2 m (10 ft)

The specifications of the 1893 replica, according to a contemporary reporter, is 75ft in length overall and 25ft beam, slightly different from the estimates above.

Benefits of the Build

A New York Times article from 1893 states that the ships “were built in Carraca by the Spanish Government, following laws passed just after the Columbian Fair had been decided upon.” According to the “Connecting the Windy City” blog, the United States paid for the build, appropriating $50,000 for the purpose.

But there’s more to the story and another reason to focus on the Santa Maria: the Nina and Pinta replicas were absolute disasters!

An article from the Orlando Sentinel identifies William Curtis, an official with the US State Department in Spain, as the idea man behind the build. He got backing from Queen Maria of Spain and money from the U.S. and started building in 1891 for the already planned Columbian Exposition

Arsenal de la Carraca is a naval shipyard and base in San Fernando, Spain. The shipyard dates to the mid-18th century. It was no stranger to traditional ship-building, but interestingly about this time it was also used by an early submarine, built in 1887.

The Orlando Sentinel article notes that “construction of the Santa Maria went well, but work on the Nina and Pinta was much slower.” Eventually, behind schedule and desperate, the builders abandoned new builds for Santa Maria‘s sister ships and just used two “rotting hulls.” I can sense all the shipwrights and boaties in the readership shivering with horror. Unsurprisingly, these two ships would continue to be problematic.

Not much other information on the build has turned up under my research skills, but I would love to hear more if any reader can point me in the right direction!

Life After Launch

The Santa Maria replica was sailed across the Atlantic, but the Nina and Pinta had to be towed by U.S. Naval Ships. Little information has turned up about the Santa Maria‘s voyage, though it can’t have been easy.

One of the strange things about their arrival at the Exposition in 1893 is how ugly and awkward they were found by several sources. My previous post on the Viking replica already remarked on how clumsy the carracks were in the Norwegians’ estimation, although they had a definite axe to grind. But the New York Times article about the carracks’ arrival harps on about this too. It calls them “dumpy, cumbrous craft”, and later “crazy little ships.” This might be part of a larger theme of the Times reporter in suggesting that providence must have had a hand in getting Columbus to the New World (because his ships sure weren’t to any credit!). Take a look at the comments section to any video of the newer replicas and you’ll find lots of people who disagree and find these ships beautiful (as do I).

The vessels were towed up the Great Lakes to Chicago for the exposition and on its final day held a silly pageant with an actor portraying Columbus and others portraying natives. I’m sure they were earnest, but I’m also positive it was ridiculous and offensive.

Unfortunately, life didn’t treat any of the ships very kindly. By 1901 they were donated to the City of Chicago, which didn’t seem particularly dedicated to their care.

“By 1903 The Tribune in an editorial called the ships “useless, deserted, forgotten hulks, victims of wind and storm and the prey of vandals, stripped of their furnishings and appliances, stripped even of all sentiment and associations, melancholy reminders of the festal days of the white city.” (Connecting the Windy City)

“The vessels stayed on the lakes, until they were wanted for the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914.  As they left the Great Lakes, their age and wear became obvious.  The Nina and Pinta nearly sank in Lake Erie during the trip and were eventually towed back to Chicago. ” (National Museum of the Great Lakes)

The Santa Maria made it further, but suffered different ignominy. At its scheduled stops along East Coast ports, it drew only small crowds and made its investors very little money. To further compound the shame, upon its return it was impounded in Canada when the backers could not pay wharf fees. It was not until 1918 when the matter was settled and it was allowed to return to Chicago. (Orlando Sentinel)

“The three ships were not together long. The Pinta sank at its moorings; in 1919, the Nina caught fire and sank…In 1920, the Santa Maria was rebuilt and continued to draw tourists until 1951, when it was destroyed by fire.” (Orlando Sentinel).

Further Thoughts

I pause only a little to lament the fate of these craft, biased as I am against them as historical commemoration. While a conversation about Columbus is difficult to have even today, it isn’t clear that these ships would have been useful in such a discussion.

The challenge with historical monuments, especially big impressive ones like ships, is that their implicit visual message is hard to overcome, even with an explicit verbal or textual message. Speaking as a museum professional, for the ten people you engage with a good text panel or a docent or interpreter, there are a 100 for whom even seeing the craft reinforces a positive celebration of their history. That is, they see a big beautiful iconic craft and naturally start to admire them and their story uncritically.

Neither should we weep for the loss of a commemoration of Columbus and his fleet. Besides the ubiquitous celebration of the man himself, there have been any number of further replicas made of the Santa Maria, Nina, and Pinta. Wharf of the Caravels is a heritage site in Spain with three working replicas dating from the 1992 Exposition. You can find other spanish replicas from the 1920s , up to the present day.

Yes, the Columbus story is essential to history. But in some ways, you can draw a line between “history” and “commemoration,” although it is not always easy. History is, or should be, an inquiry into the past – certainly biased but ideally open-minded. Commemoration contains little or no inquiry, and is generally only concerned with celebration. It is not always misplaced – some things are worthy of commemoration. But those things also change through time.

And it is not anyone’s responsibility not to be offended, but rather our collective responsibility to be respectful.

And building, sailing, and celebrating a ship that began a genocide, when conditions for North America’s Indigenous peoples were entering a nadir during the 1890 – with Residential Schools, pass and permit systems, and institutional curtailing of any rights they possessed, is certainly disrespectful. And also remember: within a decade the U.S. and Spain would be at war and trading colonies back and forth as if playing Risk, with little or no concern for the self-determination of their Indigenous peoples.

I think there are better ships to replicate and better heroes to celebrate.

---

“QUEER CRAFT THESE CARAVELS. – Those Who Saw Them Hobble to Anchor Marveled at Columbus’s Pluck”. New York Times. 26 April 1893. Retrieved 18 November 2015

“WHAT HAPPENED TO NINA, PINTA, AND SANTA MARIA THAT SAILED IN 1892?“. Orlando Sentinel. 10 May 10, 1992 (UPDATED: 25 July 25, 2021). Retrieved 29 February, 2024.

Chicago Old and New. “Chicago’s Santa Maria Replica” Connecting the Windy City, September 16, 2013, http://www.connectingthewindycity.com/2013/09/chicagos-santa-maria-replica.html. Accessed February 29, 2024.

---

Clio’s Armada is a blog series Tom is writing based on his passion for heritage boatbuilding and examples he has seen of it around the world. Read about over twenty examples from the 1860s to the 2010s!