Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

US Merchant Fleet around 1800


Fluffy Fishy

Recommended Posts

At the advice of Prater I feel like it is only right to open up this discussion we have briefly had tonight, mainly due to my desire to understand the subject better, I will put the entire discussion so far into a spoiler so as not to spam a horrendously long black of text. The discussion so far has been as below;

 
3 hours ago, Prater said:

But people who say the US played an irrelevant role and barely in the time period and are therefore over represented don't know what they are talking about.  In the early 1800s around the time of the 1812 war, the US was 2nd in merchant shipping, had over 10,000 vessels, 69,000 seamen, and shipped over 1 million metric tons a year.  The NE was heavily involved in shipbuilding, and the capture of the USS President in the 1812 war led the British to make design changes to their heavy frigates.  All this by, what at the time was, a small and new nation.  Let us also not forget who we come from, the British, and their naval tradition was ingrained in us.  All our major cities were ports with major shipbuilding and shipping operations, and due to our mostly neutral positions, meant our shipping was going all over the world.  Further, we had unlimited resources for shipbuilding.  A common sight in that period would be an American brig, similar to the brig in game, or an American Topsail schooner, like the Lynx and others.  While the Navy was small, the "privatized" area was not, and would deal a heavy blow in both the Revolution and War of 1812 to the British merchant marine.

So I asked,

3 hours ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

Hello, I just saw your post about the USA having 10,000 merchant ships, I am curious where you get the data for that from, it seems somewhat hard to believe considering the tiny size of the US navy during the time. I'm not suggesting its wrong, just interested in the data :)

His reply was,

2 hours ago, Prater said:

There are a few sources, and I am finding more

British Expeditionary Warfare and the Defeat of Napoleon, 1793-1815 


https://books.google.com/books?id=w0RJDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&dq=British+Expeditionary+Warfare+and+the+Defeat+of+Napoleon,+1793-1815&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_rM3Gle3RAhVR8GMKHUqwB08Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(chapter 3, pg 71-73) 1801 US trade reached 800k tons.  Closest rival to the British, in terms of merchant/private fleet size, was the US.

 

Toll's Six Frigates is another (page 14 for summary, has much more later in the book).  That's where I got the 10,000 vessels from and 69,000 seamen and 1 million tons in trade around the War of 1812.  I need to find where he gets these numbers from.

 

Foundations of British Maritime Ascendancy

https://books.google.com/books?id=qMcBYttBoigC&printsec=frontcover&dq=British+Maritime+Ascendancy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1x_TRmu3RAhWB0YMKHVHdCKwQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(pg 78-84) The British in this time period had 13,000 private ships.  It says the US were their next rivals.  It says 1/3rd of all British ships were built in the US prior to the revolution.

These are some sources I am basing my comments on but this is only a little bit of looking into.

 

2 hours ago, Prater said:

 
To which I responded with,

 

1 hour ago, Fluffy Fishy said:

Thank you very much for the reply. Sadly I can't see the majority of those pages because they have done that book page blocking thing.

The information that I can find is that 1/3rd of US ships managed to make it to sea in 1813, dropping to 1/12th by 1814, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the USA had around 9,200 ships sitting in its ports, also as someone who quite frequently studies the more social side of maritime history and trade I haven't come across any major instances of US shipping apart from the Barbary wars, and from my own studies I know that until Venice fell their 320(ish) ships were the most notable traders in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The other data I have is from Rif Winfield where he states that Britain had a trading fleet of 21,000, so its not impossible for the USA to have so many ships itself, although I hope you understand I see it as quite implausible, especially considering that that my understanding of the USA was that it struggled with the financial burden of the cost of independence for a long time, at least 50 years.

My other scepticisms come from the fact that the USA was so reluctant to spend money on a strong navy and how both the USA and Britain acted in the war of 1812, I feel like if there was a significantly widespread US shipping industry it would have become more of a target for Britain, not subjected to rigorous blockades, surely its more financially destructive to capture a merchant ship than keep it in port, also if the USA had such an extensive merchant fleet why did they not fit out these ships to privateer similarly to the french, instead they planned their privateer fleet of 20 Baltimore clippers. I feel like if it were true that the USA had such a large maritime investment we should have seen a second golden age of piracy due to their weak nature and lack of naval investment, with pirates only targeting US shipping, where European navies turn a blind eye.

To put the USA into some perspective to something I understand a lot better, Venice had a navy of around 80 ships, 20 of which were large frigates or small ships of the line, protecting their mercantile fleet of the previously mentioned 320, both the USA and Venice were generally neutral politically.

I hope you can understand my reluctance to this information about US shipping, I would be hugely grateful if you could make the time to answer my points, I would really appreciate some more insight into this.

Thanks again for the sources :)


And he came back with,

32 minutes ago, Prater said:

I think you need to bring this topic up in the historical forum where it isn't private, because I can't do the topic justice, nor do I really have the time.

I do know that 20% of the US federal budget around 1800 went to paying off pirates.  20% of the whole nation's budget, just for that purpose alone.  And yes, the government had huge debts they were buried under, and this is why it was said that the US could not afford a navy.  But that doesn't have any bearing on the private sector.

At this time the Jeffersonians controlled American politics.  Jeffersonians were mainly southerners, whose economy was agriculture.  The NE US was shipping based, that was the primary economy, and there was great conflict between the Jeffersonians and the federalists, who wanted peace with Britain and a larger US navy.  The Jeffersonians were in power, so 200 coastal gunboats were built instead of focusing on a larger actual navy.  The gunboats were not national, but locality based - think militia.  The US has always had a tendency towards privatization and militia over regular military, until the mid 1800s.  The US privateer fleets during the conflicts with European powers was pretty significant.

Also, the US is a huge nation with a lot of coastline.  10,000 ships in port would be nothing.  At this time the US coast would have been 1500 miles long (removing Florida), with a tidal shoreline of 25,000 miles.  Many of the US ports were inland, using deep water rivers and bays.  But anyway, I remember reading that people were putting out to sea to get on their way before wars started and embargoes were passed, so that they wouldn't get locked up in port not making money.  I don't know that you are considering the extensiveness of land that the US occupies.  Our states are often the size of whole nations in Europe.  The US government is more akin to the EU, and the states more akin to the EU member states.

A big portion of the 20% budget I mentioned above went to the Barbary Pirates.  This is why the US didn't dominate Mediterranean (a small area of the world) trade.  But its ships were heavily involved everywhere else.  In the mid 1780s, only about 100 US merchants regularly traveled to the Mediterranean.  That is 1/3 the Venetians total merchant ships, and this is 15-20 years prior to the boom in US trading.  When the Barbary Pirate issue was going on, US merchant travel into the Mediterranean dried up significantly.

That's all I have for now.  Make a topic on the forums and others can contribute.

Also, this is after the Golden Age of Piracy, so I don't think there would be a huge boom, especially when other nations still patrolled the seas and hunted down pirates, no matter the nationality.


 


I would really appreciate if people could add some more depth and insight into this topic, as without sounding ignorant but I really find it rather difficult to accept that the US so quickly outgrew the powers of Europe in 1800, especially France Spain and Portugal, with all their colonial and trade holdings. My personal estimate to the US maritime fleet would be a much smaller number maybe around 1000 ships, however I am more than happy to accept if this is a gross underestimate. My initial reaction is that things don't add up properly.

To reply to Prater's comments in his last message, it seems a disproportionate cost to paying off pirates, especially if the lions share of the state budget went to the Barbaries, considering they had around 100 US merchants travelling the area, for me there are just too many inconsistencies like this that I would really like to iron out in my understanding. Perhaps this number has somewhat of a distorted reality, where a huge number of these ships were infact fishing boats, barges and service craft like dredgers or pilot ships.

With regards to the Barbary issue, the Barbary pirates were a huge problem in the 1770s and 80s, something that subsided slightly after 1786 but never really went away, the problem starting to grow significantly again aver 1792. it seems somewhat strange to imagine that the US shipping wasn't under considerable pressure from these unruly beyliks during this time period, they weren't exactly the kind to stop their piracy after being paid not to either.

if anyone can spare some time to expand on the subject I would be hugely appreciative, and I want to say a massive thank you to Prater for the conversation so far.

 

Edited by Fluffy Fishy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Prater's sources:

http://imgur.com/a/DxxJd

The American merchant marine was second-largest by 1803.

I think you're overlooking the fact that the early United States was a hyper maritime society. No form of serious economic activity could go on without shipping. Shipbuilding and maritime trade was something that went on in every tiny cove and coastal hamlet. Oceangoing ships were built in what was practically wilderness.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

American Neutrality and Prosperity, 1793-1808: A Reconsideration

https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/users/jcalhoun/Courses/Growth_of_American_Economy/Chapter_Supplemental_Readings/Chapter_07/Adams-American_Neutrality_and_Prosperity.pdf

Page 727 and surrounding area talks about US shipbuilding.  Page 727 contains a chart on the tonnage built (in shipbuilding) in the US during these years.

Page 733.

Between 1803 and 1807, the British seized 528 American ships, and the French 389.

page 734

it talks about the increase in US spending on the navy.

 

 

 

Here are some export numbers (page 131)

https://books.google.com/books?id=S6YwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=us+merchant+shipping+1800&source=bl&ots=-oCwDz2_50&sig=-UY_u8ZPiXm853M1ipPZCuwX4R4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn4b2Vy-3RAhUhzoMKHR3xBhs4FBDoAQg4MAU#v=onepage&q=us merchant shipping 1800&f=false

 

I can't seem to find numbers on actual ships.

Edited by Prater
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true also that there was a tremendous amount of controversy over the construction of a navy, and one of the reasons why (despite the obvious, in retrospect, need to defend a merchant fleet) was the the Navy was considered by definition more "royalist" and less egalitarian than a militia army and it was resisted on principle by the Jeffersonian faction. This, coupled with its cost, was a key reason it was opposed in the US Congress. Consider that prior to the Civil War, the rank of admiral did not exist as it was seen as too close to a title of nobility.

 

Of course, the attitude eventually changed at least partly (the rallying cry "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!" was characteristic of the opposing viewpoint that it was better to spend the money on a navy than to pay the protection money to the Barbary Pirates).

 

Prior to the War of 1812, US shipping was still de facto under the general protection of the Royal Navy. This also contributed to the feeling in the US that a Navy was not needed. I heartily recommend Ian Toll's book "Six Frigates" which covers these events, and one of the most fascinating and provocative introductions in such a book I ever read was his: he outlines how, with the wreckage of Trafalgar still burning, a US merchant ship shows up in the detritus and basically says "Hey guys, what's up? You want to buy anything?" which exemplifies the ubiquitousness of the US merchant marine at the time.

 

Finally, I will say on a personal note that this topic has a special place in my heart, as I am an officer in the modern US merchant marine. The US merchant fleet is an often overlooked, but historically vital component of the national economy and defense. From the founding of the Republic until the Navy became thoroughly professionalized with the advent of steam and iron ships (and even occasionally afterwards) many of the US navy's officers came from the merchant fleet. Even now, the Navy maintains an auxiliary reserve within the merchant marine in the event of a large enough war.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Prater has covered this pretty well. I've been listening to Ronald Utt's Ships of Oak, Guns of Iron: The War of 1812 and the Forging of the American Navy on audio and it contains similar statistics on the size of the merchant fleet and number of seamen, although the estimates of men employed at sea at any one time are highly variable.  Will have to order a print copy to pull some of the numbers.

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More reading Prater's sources (The American Merchant Marine: Its History and Romance from 1620 to 1902, page 43):

Foreign trade shipping registered in 1789 was 124,000 tons (almost 500 ships)

1792: 411,000 tons (over 1600 ships)

1796: 576,000 tons (2300 ships)

Tonnage almost tripled in a year, which is fantastic. Presumably a lot of existing ships were immediately registered for foreign trade, as opposed to coasting. Or possibly the Federal Government's new interest in protecting American shipping coincided with better recordkeeping of registrations.

 

Edit: Here's a fun stat. In 1807 there were 12.5 cubic feet of shipping (however this is measured) in foreign trade for every inhabitant of the U.S. So basically if someone disturbed a subterranean race of dragons in an Ohio coal mine, you could have loaded the entire population of the country onto ships and transported the refugees back back to Europe in a single trip. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating work from everybody and a very interesting subject. Im looking forward for more! It would also be interesting to see a comparison between the American and the Greek merchant fleet of the age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sella22 said:

Fascinating work from everybody and a very interesting subject. Im looking forward for more! It would also be interesting to see a comparison between the American and the Greek merchant fleet of the age.

See here for Greek:

https://books.google.com/books?id=-vLcCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT30&lpg=PT30&dq=greek+merchant+shipping+18th+century&source=bl&ots=wi9mewIvv3&sig=6YFMvGuJF7xvvPO-wjc32bmcbbA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih6b6asO_RAhUSHGMKHWdPCQk4ChDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&q=greek merchant shipping 18th century&f=false

 

More U.S stats:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 7:07 PM, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:

snip

Prior to the War of 1812, US shipping was still de facto under the general protection of the Royal Navy. This also contributed to the feeling in the US that a Navy was not needed. I heartily recommend Ian Toll's book "Six Frigates" which covers these events, and one of the most fascinating and provocative introductions in such a book I ever read was his: he outlines how, with the wreckage of Trafalgar still burning, a US merchant ship shows up in the detritus and basically says "Hey guys, what's up? You want to buy anything?" which exemplifies the ubiquitousness of the US merchant marine at the time.

 

Finally, I will say on a personal note that this topic has a special place in my heart, as I am an officer in the modern US merchant marine. The US merchant fleet is an often overlooked, but historically vital component of the national economy and defense. From the founding of the Republic until the Navy became thoroughly professionalized with the advent of steam and iron ships (and even occasionally afterwards) many of the US navy's officers came from the merchant fleet. Even now, the Navy maintains an auxiliary reserve within the merchant marine in the event of a large enough war.

Many people may also may not know there is a Merchant Marine Academy as well (in Kings Point, NY if I am not mistaken).  "Six Frigates" is on my short list.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DeRuyter said:

Many people may also may not know there is a Merchant Marine Academy as well (in Kings Point, NY if I am not mistaken).  "Six Frigates" is on my short list.

The US maintains six academies in the country to train officers for the Merchant Marine. All but one are state academies, operated by the states they are in with the assistance of federal funds from the US Maritime Administration (MARAD). The oldest in continuous operation is the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, dating to 1891.

 

However, during WWII there was an acute shortage of officers for the Merchant Marine (primarily because many of the trained officers and seaman entered the Navy in 1941) so in 1942 the US government created a federal Merchant Marine Academy at King's Point, NY which today is one of the service academies in the US such as the Military Academy at West Point, the Naval Academy at Annapolis, the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, and the Coast Guard Academy at New London.

 

The state maritime academies are in Massachusetts, Maine, New York (in addition to the federal academy), California, Texas, and Michigan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for everyone's input so far, it has been great to read, I am however concerned that we are looking at this slightly the wrong way. Looking back at what has been written by myself and others so far we seem to have been interchanging the words ships and vessels very freely, by assuming all vessels are ships, where having a further look into the numbers creates something a lot more reasonable if you start to extrapolate data a bit.

Looking at the figures for London as I have some clear numbers for the city, the data states that the port of London serviced 11,964 vessels in 1794, also stating that 3,663 ships were serviced the same year, over half of the British merchant fleet during this period. This leaves you with two numbers you can play with quite nicely

Starting out if we assume that the number of vessels includes the number of ships you gain a number of;

11,964 / 3,663 = 3.267 times the number of vessels to ships or  30.6% of the merchant fleet composition.

If you assume that the numbers of ships and vessels are independent of each other, you end up with

11,964 + 3663 = 15627 Leaving you with a merchant ship composition of 23.4% of the total vessels.

Now taking this data on, and then looking at the numbers for the American merchant marine, they have their vessels quoted at around 10,000 ships in the early 1800s, not too dissimilar from the numbers serviced by the port of London. Taking the numbers from what I have prospected above you either then get a rough estimate of either around 2300 or 3000 ships (give or take a couple hundred), which as a number looks a whole lot more reasonable.

These numbers still bring some question to the severity of the issue of the Barbary pay off, $1m for 115 sailors still just seems excessive as does the huge price of $660,000 pay off for each Barbary state especially considering the relatively small number of ships and prisoners they had gained during the time period, each of these two situations accounting for around 1/10th of US federal revenues. I still can't see the justification for such a large pay out for such a tiny portion of seamen and merchant ships, was it a morale thing or was the value of their specific cargo that huge?

Out of interest, does anyone have any information for domestic vs foreign trade, and the average distance travelled that US ships undertook in their commercial dealings? I imagine that these trips are somewhat lower mileage than their European competitors, therefore inflating the data slightly due to a high proportion of short haul voyages, to say Canada, the Caribbean or Central and South America, in comparison to the more global trade of say the British, Portuguese or Dutch and their holdings in the far east.

Again thank you everyone for your contributions so far, I would love to hear some more.
 

Edited by Fluffy Fishy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Starting out if we assume that the number of vessels includes the number of ships you gain a number of;

11,964 / 3,663 = 3.267 times the number of vessels to ships or  30.6% of the merchant fleet composition.

If you assume that the numbers of ships and vessels are independent of each other, you end up with

11,964 + 3663 = 15627 Leaving you with a merchant ship composition of 23.4% of the total vessels.

Now taking this data on, and then looking at the numbers for the American merchant marine, they have their vessels quoted at around 10,000 ships in the early 1800s, not too dissimilar from the numbers serviced by the port of London. Taking the numbers from what I have prospected above you either then get a rough estimate of either around 2300 or 3000 ships (give or take a couple hundred), which as a number looks a whole lot more reasonable.

You can't mix the London and U.S. datasets just to find an excuse to divide the U.S. numbers by five. Neither is it particularly 'reasonable' to seek to do so, as the population of the U.S. in 1800 was 5 times the population of London, which is, ultimately, but a single estuary,

The U.S. numbers are for vessels (there is no meaningful distinction between vessels and ships out of context) engaged in the foreign trade. Therefore that is the merchant fleet, sailing in open water. We have information on average tonnage as well. In 1800 there wasn't much need for blue water fishing, so fishing vessels would fall under the same heading as coastal traders, excluded from the vessel totals cited above. 

 

Naturally American trade would be dominated by the North Atlantic. But so would English trade. Only a very small percentage of the largest and most well-financed vessels would make passages to the Far East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maturin said:

You can't mix the London and U.S. datasets just to find an excuse to divide the U.S. numbers by five. Neither is it particularly 'reasonable' to seek to do so, as the population of the U.S. in 1800 was 5 times the population of London, which is, ultimately, but a single estuary,

The U.S. numbers are for vessels (there is no meaningful distinction between vessels and ships out of context) engaged in the foreign trade. Therefore that is the merchant fleet, sailing in open water. We have information on average tonnage as well. In 1800 there wasn't much need for blue water fishing, so fishing vessels would fall under the same heading as coastal traders, excluded from the vessel totals cited above. 

 

Naturally American trade would be dominated by the North Atlantic. But so would English trade. Only a very small percentage of the largest and most well-financed vessels would make passages to the Far East.

I don't see the issue with mixing the datasets to establish a rough guestimate of the comparison between merchant vessels and ships, population is fairly redundant in the situation because what I am trying to establish here is the rough mix between mercantile vessels and ships, not the ships to population ratio in the same way there are differences between boats and ships. The distinction between vessels and ships is important in the same way that understanding that not all military ships are 1st rates, its also something I would like to grow a better knowledge of Napoleonic US mercantile shipping. So I have not shrunk the US fleet to suit myself, merely defined the differences in its composition to better understand the topic properly.

There is a distinction between a ship and a vessel, a vessel is defined as any floating object that can be steered or used to navigate a body of water, so can include things like river craft, barges and coracles where as a ship is generally defined as a large sea going craft, having multiple decks above the waterline and historically needing to be square rigged. Boats however are defined as smaller vessels for travelling over water, historically powered by a lateen rig or oars, but interestingly all fishing craft and submarines are considered boats. All ships and boats are vessels, but vessels are not necessarily ships or boats.

Are coastal trader's definitely excluded from the totals above? I am leaning towards the idea that ships are included in vessels and don't see it as unreasonable that Britain had around 13000 trading vessels, combined with around 7000 ocean going ships, nor as I stated earlier that the USA had around 3000 ocean going ships to 7000 smaller craft. This also supports the seaman numbers quite nicely, due to the fact that not all 69,000 sailors would be working all the time, but also considering that some of these would be managing ships that aren't counted, and serving in the navy, which seems to work towards my rough numbers too.

When it comes to trade distance, this is also of the time period where funding the construction of a ship and commissioning a voyage to India or China would repay the total value of the ship in 2-3 journeys, combined with the rise of joint stock companies the idea of the most well financed vessels making it to the far east seems a little redundant as it was so comparatively quite cheap to buy shares in these expeditions for middle class families, this growth in income and wages later becoming the main reason for the industrial revolution, this was especially popular in Amsterdam and Britain.

Anyway by conclusion, it is important to define the difference between ships and vessels in this thread, mainly because it skews numbers too much to not do so, for example something I can talk to death about is Venice. Venice in 1795 had a population of around 140,000, like I said earlier they had about 320 merchant ships, and a navy of around 80 ships, they also had around 40,000 vessels in Venice alone during this time period, of which around 15,000 were commercial traders, 25,000 were personal watercraft, although some doubled up as both. By not distinguishing the difference between the comparatively small but commercially strong Venetian mercantile fleet in the much declined republic and her trading vessels the city of 140,000 people has 5000 more ships than The USA and their 5m inhabitants, surely this is wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

667,000 tons of shipping registered as foreign trade in the U.S. in 1800.

Obviously that excludes barges and small riverine craft, or anything that isn't capable of bluewater sailing. (Although early American merchants did take some tiny craft abroad, adventurous and capable types that they were.)

With an average tonnage of 250 tons, that means 2,300 ships/vessels engaged in foreign trade. Many schooners and brigs as well as full-rigged ships, naturally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might not be following your line here but 667,000/250 is 2668, so that suggests my original numbers aren't wrong or even far out, especially as some of those would likely be making pretty short trips to places like Florida, Cuba, Canada and Hispaniola, thats only just above one trip for each of the hypothetical merchant ships every year. The sailing time between say Boston and Havana, going at 8kn is only around a week, so including docking times its very possible that a ship could go both ways in a month or two if you take it easy, or alternatively allow speculation that anything as little as somewhere between 1/2 and 1/4 of the US merchant navy would be involved with international trading, while the rest dealt with domestic trade which is why I was curious if anyone had any information on domestic haulage.

The idea that most nations tend to include their vessels in their trading capabilities is its not particularly wrong either apart from the inflationary values it causes in data, barges and river craft are rather important in foreign trade, they may not be doing the foreign part but they play a vital role in transporting goods from docks to warehouses or markets and therefore are an unmissable part of a mercantile fleet and this often reflects in the information and data you find on them. Calculating the difference between ships and vessels helps give a better understanding of the logistics involved in the same way that military fleets needed support ships.

Without lowering the tone too much, the little sentence of "Although early American merchants did take some tiny craft abroad, adventurous and capable types that they were" did give me an image of that famous scene from the opening of pirates of the Caribbean, but lets not trigger the "Jakk Sparrow"/"Jsparrow"/"Cptn Jack" types :D

Edited by Fluffy Fishy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...