WELCOME TO THE HUNLEY NEWSLETTER
ALL issues are dedicated to the brave and honorable Men of the Hunley and to the Subscribers and Contributors to each issue, particularly to the CSS H L HUNLEY CLUB and The Post and Courier,
and The State Paper. Special Thanks to Andrew R. English for his
article
"Spies and
Craftsmen: Theories of the Mystery Submarine "
and
Steve R. Smith for "THE NEW ORLEANS SUB" and his
monetary donation - That always helps.
I took a break in June to work on some other projects and decided
to produce a June/July Issue. ENJOY
Naval Submarine Alligator
- the first submarine in the United States Navy
Ladies and
Gentlemen
The Navy has recognized the 'Submarine Propeller' a.k.a. the
Naval Submarine Alligator as the first submarine in the
United States Navy, dating from 13 June 1862. This in no way
supplants the USS Holland as the first "commissioned"
submarine in the US Navy. Nor does it supplant the CSS H. L.
Hunley as the first submarine built in this country to sink
an enemy ship in combat. See the Spring issue of Undersea
Warfare.
I received a kind phone call from Admiral Deloach and a package
of Undersea Warfare from Mike Smith who wrote the article
and did a fine job.
My thanks to Admiral Jay Cohen USN (ret) and Admiral Jay Deloach,
and Mr. Dan Basta (NOAA Marine Sanctuaries head) for
spearheading this effort. And a special thanks to those intrepid
seamen who pitch and roll while looking for this elusive
target. It is through the wonderful dedication of Michiko,
Catherine, Alice, Mike, Tim, Chuck and all the Daves that this
boat is a living part of our history and not a dead footnote.
Out submarine history just keeps getting richer and more
interesting.
Sincerely
Jim Christley
christleyfineart.com
oldsubsplace.com
Among the ongoing research into
Alligator's history and the lives of the people associated with
her, one gem surfaced that surprised all of us--the story of de
Villeroi's 1832 demonstration of his first submarine. Following
is a translation of the original French page at
http://www.ecolebizu.org. We are working to track down the
source for Biraud's information in hopes there might be more.
(Note: the 1864 date at the end is in error. Alligator was lost
in 1863. "Cigar boat" is a common term of the period to describe
the shape of a submarine.)

This report is interesting because we have another document that
says Villeroi brought his submarine to America. Thinking in
terms of the vessels we were aware of--those being 35 and 47
feet long--this seemed fantastic; but if the "fish-boat" of this
article was only 8-10 feet in length, it could easily have made
the trip from France in the hold of a passenger ship. Perhaps we
now have a third submarine to look for?
Regards,
Chuck Veit
President, Navy & Marine Living History Association
www.navyandmarine.org
"The
fantastic Nautilus is precisely the submarine of the engineer
Brutus Villeroi"
Extract from Guy Biraud’s book
"Jules Verne In Nantes"
BRUTUS VILLEROI
Mister Robin, our primary school teacher, would read pages of
our History at the end of the year in the lazy days that
separate the Certificate of studies from the summer vacation.
As he had a small house in Noirmoutier, he read us the forgotten
history of this fabulous man, Brutus Villeroi, the submarine
pioneer.
This page of our History is also a chapter of the history of the
world.
On August 10, 1832, on the island of Noirmoutier, in the place
called La Claire, occurred a notable event, which gave rise to
reports from the academic societies of Vendee and Anjou which
upset their subscribers.
Assistant professor Brutus Villeroi was on the island as a
substitute [teacher] for the brothers of the Christian school.
He had been invited to attend upon his experiments in marine
engineering, the chronicler journalists from local and of the
regional newspapers and some four strong colleagues in the
branch of the denomination from his school.
Cassocks, military hats, frock coats, the beards of the
scholars, and the crisp white skirts of the ladies fluttered in
a sandy breeze at the edge of the a forest of mimosas.
Brutus Villeroi arrives, transformed into a sailor-fisherman,
hauling a strange device pushed by two sailors on a handcart.
He greets the learned company and declares:
"Ladies, gentlemen, I have the honor to present to you my
boat-fish-ship which was completely conceived and
constructed by me. This boat is submersible unsinkable and it
has the ability to sail under water."
The gentlemen and the ladies look at one another, stunned. They
examined this oblong can box which resembled a wooden
dolphin, a lid that opened to allow the pilot to enter
was provided and had at both extremities lateral fins
comparable to those of a shark.
In the front, a thick partition inner wall of transparent glass
was inlaid in the shell to allow the navigator to guide his
device under the sea.
The speaker continued his explanation:
I will point out to you that this is in no way
comparable to da Vinci’s diving bell or to the diving suit drawn
by the same inventor. It is not linked up to the earth,
and it can sail to a depth of thirty or forty meters under
waters. I will have the honor to do to evolve make this
machine move the device in front of you. .."
The assistants pushed the cart to the beach, released the
hawsers and the ropes that connected it to the hitch, and the
boat-fish-ship settled onto the damp sand. The pilot entered
carefully, nimbly wedged himself on the seat, waved his
arms in sign of as a farewell, resealed [closed] the lid and,
was vigorously pushed by the two sailors, the boat fish-ship entered
[went under] the waves of the Atlantic.
The spectators watched, stunned. "There must be some
sorcery, said a priest or some deception or an some unknown propulsion motor in the interior, said a
scholar.
"He will drown himself", said a lady.
And for twenty minutes they watched the sea carefully.
The journalist from the Vendéen Album who was observing
the horizon with a pair of Navy binoculars abruptly uttered a
triumph cry:
"I can see him, it He has landed on the island. He is waving
at us, making us big signs."
Everyone rushed to binoculars. "It is true, it is him.
.."
And on the coast of Fromentine, the first conqueror of the
crossing of the Gois underwater waved his arms in a signal sign
of victory. A flotilla of small fishing boats sailed to escort
the boat fish-ship. A quarter of an hour later he was emerging at the place called La Claire, in front of an
enthusiastic and delirious helping crowd. Brutus Villeroi
received the welcome reception that Blériot had to have known on
the Dover cliffs.
The life of Brutus Villeroi was marked by mysterious dives and
spectacular discoveries surfacing, as one would expect have been
able to judge at the dawn of Twenty Thousand Leagues under the
seas. His biographers will lose his trail trace for a first
time for ten years the first time, and then for a a second time
for twenty years.
Let’s recall for a moment his first reappearance.
In 1842, a decade after his amazing demonstration at Noirmoutier,
we rediscover Brutus Villeroi as a professor of drawing and
mathematics at the College of Saint-Donatien, where the student
Jules Verne had just registered. The local history saluted this
above the norm professor as a great innovator. He enjoyed an
undisputable prestige among his students.
Let us dream a little. No testimony, no manuscript allows us to
shed light on the friendship between the professor and the
student. Nothing, other than an article by a Mr. Gignoud.
Outside of this article, we are left only with logic. How could
the student Jules Verne, whom his friends described as
keeping himself busy by covering his notebooks with plans of and
models of flying machines, necessarily have been unaware of his drawing professor? Could
he, who, according to its his fellow students, use to sketched
the outline of a "vaporous steamed elephant bus" on the black-board how would he
not have shared his visionary dreams with Brutus Villeroi?
Unthinkable. Impossible.

Model of Jules Verne's Nautilus
Let’s look at them, the teacher and the student, within the
walls of the old school when they return in October, under the
age-old sycamores as the fall wind strips their crowns of
leaves, and let’s imagine their [talks] dialog in the school yard
covered with browning leaves and the first burs of the big
chestnuts. With what eagerness [does] did the child Jules Verne,
read to himself hear of the unbelievable adventures
of the dive under the ocean [diver!] With what exquisite delight
he collected the secrets of [from] the explorer of the Noirmoutrine abyssal plain! Extraordinary,
[will] would you say?
Indeed. Who saw them? Who heard them? And would
that have
been pure aberration if thirty years after the school yard and
the playground the Nautilus did not arise.
Again, this may be just pure luck however, the repetitions of
the circumstances create firm certainties the submarine in
action which offered the greatest analogy and presented the
greatest number of similarities with the fantastic Nautilus is
precisely the submarine of the engineer Brutus Villeroi, who
took refuge in the United States and who was funded by the
American Navy.
The engineer kept his name, but rechristened his vehicle.
It is no more the fish, it is now the cigar-boat (built in New
York in 1864). To this day, no French submarine was ever
christened with the name of Brutus Villeroi.

Courtesy of Andy Hall and
the CSS H L HUNLEY CLUB

Released by Universal in 1916, 20,000
Leagues Under the Sea was the first great special effects
spectacular of early cinema. Based on the Jules Verne novel, the
story concerns a team of scientists investigating a series of
naval disturbances who find the culprit is the Nautilus, a
submarine piloted by Captain Nemo, a hate-driven renegade
seaman. Over a year-and-a-half in production, 20,000 Leagues
Under the Sea is a colorful recreation of Verne's science
fiction classic.
*Available at Monsters
in Motion
|
EDITORS NOTE: Subscribers may recall the following
article. It is my opinion that Jules Verne would not have
had knowledge of the "Explorer."
News Flash on Jules Verne Nautilus
real-life Submarine
Date Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 (CST) By:
frassinetti |
|
Inside scoop on the story behind the
story of the recent discovery on the Panama coastline, as
you know, according to International news sources, it seems
that Jules Verne Nautilus real-life inspiration was found in
the coast of Panama, but here is some more interesting
details......
|
| Jules Verne Nautilus real-life
........
We recently
published an article telling the amazing story on the
Explorer, an amazing submarine that according to the experts
on location was the real life inspiration for Jules Verne
Nautilus submarine described in 20,000 leagues under the
sea. |

excerpt
from
http://www.shipwreckworld.com
Spies and
Craftsmen: Theories of the Mystery Submarine
by Andrew R. English
A shadow in the gas lamp flicker provides a valuable
hint into a war time drama. On January 11, 1862, New
Orleans police officers Anderson and McLaughlin brought two men
before a city magistrate on the charge of spying for the Union.
The Crescent City was in the grip of a spy scare as the Federal
Navy grew in strength in the Gulf. The enemy was on
the doorstep and for those residents in the metropolis not
native born, the merest sniff of disloyalty could result in
imprisonment. T he Daily Picayune
lamented:
"everyday they hear one thousand alarming rumors, and their
wonder is, every morning they were not made prisoners of war
during their sleep, by an invading army.
The two alleged spies collared by the New Orleans policemen
were Erastus Hickok of Harrisonburg, Louisiana and Joseph R.
Booth from Vicksburg. Both men were reportedly carpenters
but the story takes an unusual turn as they denied the charge of
spying and announced to First District Recorder William Emerson
that they had made the plans of an "infernal machine' to destroy
the blockading Union warships. Apparently Emerson believed
the story as the clerk of the court did not enter their names
into the docket book. The phrase "infernal machine" was
also used in reference to another New Orleans vessel, the first
Civil War ironclad. The turtle back iron plates which gave
the ironclad her distinctive silhouette were laid over the
sturdy hull of the former towboat ENOCH TRAIN to create
the C.S.S. Manassas. The carpenters claimed they
had designed an infernal machine, not converted a steamer.
To have designed a seagoing special weapon meant that the two
carpenters had knowledge above the average cabinet maker
or house builder. These two men were likely pattern
makers, a skill usually associated with those who worked in iron
to create the finished project.
No information has been unearthed relating to the mysterious
carpenter Hickok however, the 1860 directory of the City of
Vicksburg holds intriguing circumstantial evidence regarding Mr.
Booth. In 1860, a John Booth was listed as an "engineer
and machinist" and was employed at a Vicksburg foundry.
Ironically another gentleman named George Booth was employed in
that city at the Southern Railroad machine shop. The story
solidifies a bit more when compared to the 1860 Warren County,
Mississippi census.
Apparently John Booth ran a boarding house in Vicksburg and all
16 male occupants who were of working age were either
blacksmiths or machinist. Most of the ironmongers (including
Booth) came from the United Kingdom and a few from Canada.
Only one hailed from the United States and he called Louisiana
home. The Crescent City was the vital center of pre-war
commerce for the South; James R. McClintock and Baxter Watson
operated a steam gauge manufacturing shop at 31 Front Levee
Street. These forward thinking mechanical engineers built
a submarine (1861-1862) known appropriately as the Pioneer
with work conducted at the Leeds Foundry.
By 1861 Booth and perhaps his relatives could have moved to
New Orleans to seek more lucrative employment upon the outbreak
of the war. One "J. Booth" was listed as a blacksmith, and
lived at Constance and N. Seventh Streets. A Carpenter
named "T Booth" had his residence nearby at Constance and Eighth
Streets. Constance street was a focal point of machine
work and metallurgy as one small firm at 32 Constance Street,
Thomas H. Borden & Company, also manufactured Steam Gauges.
Another point of geographic familiarity, the Leeds Foundry,
a cradle of American submarine construction, had their
office at the corner of DeLord and Constance Streets. The
1861 New Orleans directory lists only one "Hickok," however this
thread can not be easily dismissed as Mr. Daniel S. Hickok
resided at Lake House on Shell Road.
The noted Crescent City naval enthusiast and inventor John
Roy, had urged the officials of the embryonic Confederate Navy
to build an already designed submarine that would be "equipped
with a mechanism capable of raising and depressing the vessel at
will, and a separate apparatus for turning the vessel,"
Again another hint as Roy stated the vessel was "an English
invention." As to construction of the mystery submarine,
the 2004 broadcast of History Detectives examined the
vaporous history of the small Civil War era submersible formerly
housed at the Cabildo. The detectives claim that the
mystery submarine was 'built entirely from scratch"
and states that late in the war the South ran low on resources
and had to improvise with existing metal objects.
When the
Hunley was built in 1863, it was constructed from a converted
boiler." Conservator Dave Johnson, working on the project to
restore the New Orleans submarine, commented that the "hull
plates are formed in a strange pattern-this is not a
converted boiler." During the episode it was reported that "each
panel was rolled on the mystery submarine. The iron panels
were one-quarter inch thick iron sheets fastened with
five/eights inch counter sunk rivets.
The claim that the South ran low on resources late in the war
is untrue, the South and especially New Orleans, suffered from
shortages at the onset of the blockade. Some New Orleans
ship builders snapped up available iron in September 1861, this
firm had almost entirely exhausted its then available pig iron
stocks. In a desperate attempt to gather in enough iron to
meet its contractual obligation, Tredegar sent agents to New
Orleans and other cities to acquire dwindling supplies of scrap
metals. As New Orleans firms were transitioning from civilian
production to the manufacture of armaments, armor-clad and
special weapons, iron and other vital metallurgical materials
became scarce overnight. New Orleans was forced to
improvise and cobble together a military manufacturing base as
the Union armies marched south and the blockade tightened from
Hampton Roads to the Texas shores.
The Crescent City experienced a shipbuilding boom yet the
government in Richmond was slow to pay its accounts. Partially
as a result of unscrupulous ship owners dumping worn out
steamers on the fledgling Confederate navy authorities and the
penury of the Treasury Department, Confederate government
credit fell to a low level in New Orleans. Mismanagement,
supply shortages and steamships of insufficient quality caused
the New Orleans Daily True Delta to warn "It is
clear that there is much dangerously wrong."
The Crescent City
needed a new weapon to counter the Federal numerical and
qualitative superiority afloat. The greatest shortage the
South experienced during the war was in skilled workers.
One New Orleans shipbuilder lamented "There was a great
deficiency of mechanics of all kinds, especially in the machine
shops.. There was a good deal of Government work on hand at all
the shops in New Orleans, and they were all pressed for hands."
William Morrison Robinson, Jr. surveyed the mystery submarine
at Camp Nicholls in the mid-1920's and pronounced it " the
product of true craftsmanship." Regarding the strange"
patterned well formed plates used in the construction, a wartime
advertisement in a New Orleans newspaper offers a possible
source for almost purpose made materials. George M. Longacre, a
"Consulting and Mechanical Engineer" offered two steamboat
chimneys for sale in the spring of 1862 . The chimneys
were second hand but in good condition and made of "number 10
iron" Accounting for gauges of sheet iron, No. 10 equals app.
1/8 inch thickness, offering a possible explanation if the
sheets were folded over and laminated to create the strength of
the quarter inch thick rolled plates on the mystery submarine
from a steamboat funnel procured from Longacre or another
merchant offering similar rolled iron rarities.
By the
late 1850's steamboat chimneys towered as high as 90 feet above
the water. The tall smokestacks increased the forced draft in
the boilers and the sparks were usually extinguished by
the great fall before they sprinkled the deck, thereby reducing
the threat of fire. Even light steamers of one hundred
tons or smaller frequently carried 50 foot high chimneys.
With one iron funnel of average length, the clandestine
shipwrights would have sufficient material with which to build
their submarine.

The arrest of Booth and Hickok in the First ward places them
across the river from Algiers, the dockyards where the other
more conventional infernal machines, the Manassas, was converted
into an ironclad by the workmen at John Hughes Shipyard. The
proximity of the Leeds Works could point to the likelihood that
a certain type of craftsmanship was required to manufacture
experimental submarine hulls. Therefore, the
same hands who built the Pioneer were possibly also
engaged in building a similar sister, the mystery submarine,
Leeds would have had the necessary workforce, as it was the
largest iron works in the city during the early years of the
war. Other nearby shops such as the John Clark foundry at
Tchoupitoulas & North Orange Streets or the sheet iron works of
Charles Byrne at 46 Tchoupitoulas or those of Wheeler and
Forstall at 185 Tchoupitoulas offer other intriguing
possibilities for the likely birthplace of the mysterious
submarine.

One report claims that the submersible was made by ""Captain
Hunley and two Confederate soldiers during the last few months
of 1861 and the early part of 1862." The facts related to this
submarine and the Pioneer are interlaced with similar lineage in
the secrecy of the times and with those dedicated to creating a
unique war machine for Dixie. As the Pioneer
was the prototype for the Hunley, it is possible that the
mystery submarine was a test bed for the Pioneer.
Indeed the two ironclads Louisiana and Mississippi
stand as wartime examples of naval experimentation in
Confederate New Orleans. Built side by side sometimes
using the same workers, the two warships, built by two different
teams, were radically different in design. Clearly the
Southerners were not willing to place their faith in only one
untried blueprint for their ironclad steam batteries therefore
it is possible that the same can be said for the crafting of
Crescent City submarines. The pedestrian proximity is a
key feature relating to the two men reportedly engaged in
designing the infernal machine.; With Farragut's
fleet blockading the river delta and the spy scare deepening,
anyone could be questioned or apprehended. Provost Marshal
Dufour even ordered Chief of Police McClellan arrested for
interfering with a patrol The Daily Picayune
assessed the climate by announcing "our provost marshals are in
earnest." With the onset of martial law, infernal machine
builders, especially those of foreign birth, would have been
less likely to travel too far from their homes or places of
employment in order to avoid running afoul of the roving Provost
guards.

Meanwhile, others in New Orleans were continuing experiments
with new engines of naval warfare. Arthur Barbarian demonstrated
his newly fashioned torpedo on Lake Pontchartrain when he blew
up a skiff in a shattering explosion. Wives and daughters
of sailors serving the Southland were given preferences for
employment at the Naval Ordinance laboratory in New Orleans.
Among the delicate work performed by these women was the fitting
of fuses and friction primers. It is possible that they
equipped the experimental torpedoes tested on Lake Pontchartrain
with powder and detonation devises. Torpedoes, later known
to modern navies as mines, were confusingly also referred to
during the war as "infernal machines." Midshipman James
Morgan, CSN, also referred to the LeMat handgun, a combination
shotgun and revolver as an "infernal machine" further
complicating the reference to manned underwater vessels.

1895 Mystery Submarine
The mystery submarine apparently had a three-man crew and was
powered by two men sitting on iron brackets ":fastened opposite,
on each side of the vessel, immediately under the
hatchway" worked a crank shaft by hand to rotate the propeller.
The third member of the crew was the commander who stood forward
of the hatch in order to navigate the vessel and to operate the
diving planes. One source claims that at the launch of the
submarine in 1862, she slipped beneath the water and never
surfaced. Reportedly two slaves suffocated on this
trial dive. Another source claims three sailors died
within her hull on her only run.

William Robinson opined that at the bow of the submarine,
the
two inch wide circular tube " was used for forward observation
rather that as a socket for a torpedo spar." Another
reason for the forward tube could be related to an intelligence
report received from a pro-union Mobile, Alabama man. In
September 1861, the U.S. Consul in Hamburg, Germany
received a report which featured a crude drawing of an ironclad
"Turtle"
then building at a New Orleans dock. The low lying vessel was
capable of deflecting cannon balls with two inches of iron
shielding rendering the cigar shaped vessel virtually
imperious to Federal guns. This was obviously not the
mystery submarine but was a somewhat speculative report on the
outfitting of the Manassas. However the report does
mention that the "Hellish Engine" was equipped with "a
steam
borer or auger, about the size of a man's arm above the elbow,
which in a moment , bores a hole into the vessel. It is
possible that this intelligence report confused the Manassas
with another mysterious weapon. Perhaps the little
submarine was equipped with a hand powered auger with which to
install an explosive in a hostile hull, in the same manner
Bushnell's Revolutionary War Turtle planned to attack H.M.S.
Eagle in 1776. The French inventor Brutus de Villeroi,
designed several improved submarines for the French Navy and
included in his specification an auger to attack an unfortunate
wooden hulled opponent. Emperor Napoleon III did not
support the idea and de Villeroi's undersea apparatus would have
to wait until the next century before France christened a steel
shark festooned with the tricolor.

The Hamburg dispatch was not the only report of a novel Rebel
creation preparing to embark on a stealthy crusade against the
blockading fleet below New Orleans. In June 1861, a school
teacher from New England had been teaching a little north of New
Orleans and had heard of an "infernal submarine" being
constructed in the Crescent City equipped with a sharp iron or
steel pointed prow to perforate the bottom of the vessel." After
she escaped to the North, the school mistress related this
information to the Navy Department in Washington through a
friend. The unnamed informant also stated that after the Union
vessel was perforated, an explosive charge would detonate inside
the stricken ship Although she could have been
describing a spar torpedo, it is interesting to note that the
account references New Orleans newspapers as a source for
supplemental hints regarding "infernal machines"
constructed by competent engineers, etc." in the area.,
The school teacher's report gives the impression that she
had detailed information regarding the submarine as her sponsor
put "implicit reliance in the correctness of this information."
One newspaper account of the era heralds celebrated New
Orleans inventor John Roy as developing the plans for a "gun to
load under water" which was to be fired from a submarine into a
Yankee warship. As fantastic as this may seem, before the
war, Lodner Phillips had designed and built a submarine to use
as a salvage vessel on the Great Lakes,. That vessel was
successfully employed in that capacity from 1851-1855 and even
utilized an underwater cannon with which the crew blew up
subsurface obstructions. The concept of underwater cannon
as championed by Roy was also claimed by an inventor in
Europe. During the war a Spanish inventor in Barcelona
named Narciso Mouturiol built a submersible he called "Ictineo."
This iron fish was reportedly armed with underwater cannon, a
ram and torpedoes. The tireless de Villeroi also designed
a French submarine which was to have been armed with a 4-pounder
underwater cannon.
Early test with Confederate torpedoes were utilized by the
attacking vessels towing the torpedo behind in its wake as it
approached a floating target. The famous Hunley would
successfully explode a towed torpedo against an anchored scow
during trials near Mobile on July 30, 1863. Robinson
claims that over a year before the Hunley trials, the New
Orleans mystery submarine was also armed with a "Magazine of
Powder" attached to a tow line. Like Roy's underwater
cannon, the torpedo was not a new weapon. The Russians had
used torpedoes in the defense of Kronstadt, their Baltic naval
base during the Crimean War of 1854-1856.
As New Orleans was readying her ironclads, fortifications and
infernal machines to meet the Yankee invasion, another
Confederate city was experimenting with submarines. A
former U.S. Navy officer, William G. Cheeney, had received a
commission in the newborn Confederate Navy in 1861 and was busy
in Richmond building a "submarine boat." Records reveal that
Cheeney obtained crucial components such as boiler plate,
castings, bolts, and an air pump from the Tredegar Iron works
with which to build his undersea vessel. A Union spy
employed by the grandstanding detective Allen Pinkerton,
witnessed the trial of the submarine on the James in November
1861. The female informant known as "Mrs. Baker" witnessed the
submerged submarine approach a scow anchored in the river, move
off and then a "terrific explosion" rent the air and hurled the
scow skyward. The submarine reportedly had attached an
explosive charge to the anchored target and after backing away
to a safe distance, had detonated the magazine with a long wire
trailing back to the submersible. Mrs. Baker also noted
that the submarine was equipped with an air hose which was
buoyed by a float painted dark green to blend in with the color
of the river waters. This float device was the only method
which permitted the observers to mark the presence of the
stealthy subsurface craft.. Another tantalizing clue
was included in her report as Mrs. Baker claimed that this
submarine was a prototype for a larger submersible then building
in Richmond.
Researcher Frank Furman is investigating the theory that
Cheeney's submarine was transported from Richmond to New Orleans
with the Tredegar crafted center propeller shaft for the
C.S.S. Mississippi, then nearing completion at Jefferson
City in April of 1862. Cheeney had employed five men , one
was a Richmond carpenter-probably a pattern maker, to work on
"submarine batteries" in December of 1861. Mrs. Baker had
referred to the James River submersible as a "submarine battery.
On May 13, 1862, the Tredegar Iron Works submitted an invoice
for "alterations to Submarine boat." Included in the
modifications were billing cost for Grinding Glass for sight"
and "False Bows put on boat." Upon initial review,, the mention
of the submarine as a singular entity could support the claim
that the prototype was sent to New Orleans. However no
mention is made of a submarine arriving in New Orleans with the
Mississippi's propeller shaft. Indeed, the fifty foot long
shaft was too large for any railroad car available in the South.
A special car had to be fashioned for its transport to the
Crescent City. It is not likely that the Secretary
Mallory, their friend and benefactor for months pressing for the
rapid completion of the vital propeller shaft, it is also
unlikely that they would have omitted any reference to a
submarine when the shaft arrived in New Orleans on 'April 9,
1862.
Acting Master Cheney defected to the Federals in September,
1862 and reported on his work to his old compatriots. It
is certain that any reference to a submarine sent by special
train to New Orleans would not have been overlooked by a two
time turncoat eager to return to the graces of the Navy
Department in Washington. Further more, as John Roy had
mentioned that a submarine diagram, presented to the Confederate
Navy authorities in New Orleans was an English invention,
Cheeney's creation must be discounted , as he was a native of
New York. The mystery submarine currently undergoing
preservation in Baton Rouge has no "False Bows" therefore
discounting yet another connection to a submarine Tredegar
billed for in May of 1862. Another reference to Richmond
infernal machines also serves to remove the Louisiana mystery
submarine from a James River conception. As stated
previously, many industrial materials were already at a premium
in the South as early as 1861. The James River submarine
was possibly built with boiler plate however one Richmond area
manufacturer had constructed torpedoes from boiler plate as
well. These "torpedo-tanks" were crafted from boiler plate
1/2 inch in thickness. The New Orleans mystery submarine
was constructed of sheet iron 1/4 in thickness; it is unlikely
that boiler plate sheet iron supplies available to manufacture
torpedoes in the Richmond area would have been very different
from those used to manufacture Cheeney's submarines).
As the Southerners were busy under the waves, in the North an
intrepid inventor was demonstrating his undersea boat. The
ever present de Villeroi, had built a salvage submarine in 1859
reportedly to recover items from wrecked ships and to scour the
bottom of the behemoth transatlantic wonder. the Great Easter.
The Frenchman was about the business of preparing to demonstrate
the abilities of his submarine near the Philadelphia Navy Yard
when the harbor police seized the vessel on May 17, 1862.
The patriotic constables of Philadelphia feared that "it was
designed to aid and assist Jefferson Davis in the benevolent
occupation of transferring Federal vessels of war into fly
morsel of wood and iron "therefore the "whale" like craft
was seized for the Union. The Federal Navy then rewarded
de Villeroi with a contract for a submersible larger that the
prototype salvage boat. The New submarine was
appropriately dubbed the Alligator. Just as de Villeroi
built a smaller submarine to demonstrate his mechanical ability,
and Cheeney planned to build larger boats from expertise gained
from his unnamed prototype, the evidence of practical 19th
century mechanical aptitude suggests that the New Orleans
mystery submarine was also likely a test bed for a larger
submarine. Again circumstantial evidence points to the
Horace Hunley sponsored team of McClintock and Watson as the
likely candidates and the Leeds Iron Works as the facility of
choice.
Another defector provides a tenuous clue to Confederate
submarine construction along the Gulf Coast. On February
24, 1863, a dispatch was sent to Union naval officials from the
stem sloop U.S.S. Susquehanna then on blockade duty off
Mobile bay. The subject of the report was a deserter from
the gunboat C.S.S. Selma, a wooden steamer on station with the
Confederate squadron with the bay. James Carr, a native of
Brooklyn, New York, had been a Mississippi River steamboat hand
when the war broke out. He was soon thereafter deposited
in the New Orleans Parish prison as a suspected Union spy. He
was released when he promised to enlist in the service of the
Southern navy then building up in the Crescent City. While
serving aboard the Confederate gunboat McRae, he was
wounded in the uneven contest with Admiral Farragut's juggernaut
and eventually reported to Motile and his new ship the Selma.
Carr told his colleagues in the Federal Navy that a submarine
""propelled by a screw which is turned by hand capable of holding
5 persons and having a torpedo" was ready for service at Mobile.
The submarine ventured out to attack the Union fleet near Fort
Morgan on or about February 14, 1863, and the submersible was
"in charge of the Frenchman who invented it." The vessel steered
toward the enemy warships but had to cut the torpedo adrift,
when the current pulled the tiny vessel off course and out to
seal Carr also reported that "three or four other"
submarines were being built in Mobile at the time. One
such craft was the Hunley which was shipped by rail to
Charleston In August of 1863. The boat built by the
unknown Frenchman was not the Hunley, as the famous refashioned
boiler had a nine man crew. Perhaps the Frenchman was a
New Orleans citizen who, like Watson, McClintock, Horace Hunley
and others (maybe including torpedo maker Arthur Barbarin ) fled
before Union invader Ben Butler's army arrived, and removed to
Alabama's port city to start anew.
Reasons for the dearth of information regarding the mystery
submarine were undoubtedly the result of security measures prior
to the Union naval attack in April of 1862. Another reason
why so little is known of her early history is due in part to the
rapacious needs of the Confederates Navy. In the fall of
1861, Commodore Hollins was determined to acquire the Manassas
in order to attack the Federal ships anchored at the Head of
Passes., The privateer crew of the Manassas, defied
the requisition order by claiming the Confederates "did
not have men enough to take her." The gunboat McRae
steamed up alongside and lowered a boat. The men on
the armor-clad shouted that they would kill any navy seamen who
boarded their privateer. Undeterred, Lieutenant Alexander
F. Worley, CSN, stormed up the deck plates with revolver drawn
and the civilian crew submitted without bloodshed. The
ironclad was at a stroke, the property of the Confederate States
Navy. Private capital, toil and the hope of prize money
were trampled by the necessities of war. Captain John A.
Stevenson left his privateer dream and went ashore with tears in
his eyes. Any builder of another infernal machine
privateer in New Orleans would have been very aware of the
Confederate Navy's glory robbing exploits regarding Captain
Stevenson and the Manassas and would likely have been
more determined to maintain some level of secrecy until their
submersible was fully tested.
The mystery submarine was launched and lost under the
uncertainties of war and remained forgotten until 1878 when a
dredge clearing a channel in Bayou St. John happened upon her
iron skinned carcass buried in the muck. When subsequently
pulled to the surface and dumped ashore that year, this relic
became an enigmatic reminder of the genius and desperation that
was war time New Orleans. Over the decades, this
pathfinder of subsurface warfare has only sparingly oozed hints
of her past. With the restoration complete she will serve
as a fitting triumph to the overlooked hands that formed the
streamline shape and those who sank to their graves within her.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andrew R. English received a Bachelors degree in History from the
University of Southern Mississippi in 1984 and a Masters degree
in History from the same institution in 1987. He is
currently a Major in the United States Air Force. Having
published a history of Hattiesburg, Mississippi entitled: All
Off for Gordon's Station in 2000, this is his second book.
NEW WEBSITES UNDER CONSTRUCTION:
TOWN TRACKER All about my favorite cities, where to go
and what to see.
www.towntracker.com
www.charleston.towntracker.com
www.orlando.towntracker.com
http://www.towntracker.com/Harbor_Battle_map.htm I am
putting shipwreck sites and history on this map...work in
progress between Newsletters
www.savannah.towntracker.com
www.freedomofthesea.com
CONFEDERATE SITES:
www.confederatenavy.com
The forum is now up and running. Check it out, sign up is free
www.usskeokuk.com
DISNEY COUPONS: ways to get discounts and coupons at Disney
World
www.disneycoupons.com
HILTON HEAD:
www.tourhiltonhead.com
tour
PLANNED by bus of Confederate Naval sites
I am planning a one week tour by bus of Confederate
Naval sites and
museums from Wilmington (and Kinston), NC to Charleston, SC; Savannah,
GA; Columbus, GA; and ending in Mobile, AL. The cost estimates per
person are $1500 to $2000 to include transportation, lodging, meals, and
admissions. Participants will have to get to Wilmington and home from
Mobile. If enough persons sign up I can line it up for this October,
otherwise it will be October 2007.
Anyone interested
please contact me by return e-mail
at
cokerre@yahoo.com. Input welcome.
PC Coker/Charleston
csshlhunley@yahoogroups.com
|
Hunley’s Attack and Withdrawal:
Comments from the Club
I recently did some analysis
of the testimony of the Housatonic’s
crewmembers before the official Naval Court of Inquiry into the
sinking of the Housatonic. The Court of Inquiry convened about
a week after the sinking. The entire proceedings can be found on
microfilm at the National Archives and Records Administration
[see: Proceedings of the Naval Court of Inquiry on the Sinking of
the Housatonic U.S. Area Navy Files (M-265)]. However, Richard
Bak includes the proceedings as Appendix A of his book, The CSS
Hunley, The Greatest Undersea Adventure of the Civil War (Updated
Edition), Cooper Square Press, New York, New York (2003), and I
highly recommend his book.
Nineteen of the approximately 200 crewmembers aboard the
Housatonic testified before the Court of Inquiry. In my recent
analysis,
I combed their testimony for information I thought was relevant to
the Hunley’s attack and withdrawal from the target. What follows
is
relevant testimony from thirteen crewmembers. It is not presented
in
the order in which the crewmembers testified, nor is their entire
testimony presented. Also, due to the nature of the questions
asked
by the Court, I have presented latter parts of a few crewmember’s
testimony before earlier parts in order to give the actual
chronological sequence of events and make their testimony easier
to follow.
Lewis A. Comthwait, Acting
Master’s Mate: I went on watch on the forecastle at 8 P.M. February 17th and about 8:45 P.M.
the lookout on the starboard cathead reported something adrift
on the water, about two points [i.e., approximately 23 degrees]
on the starboard bow, and about 100 yards distant. I then made
it out with my glasses. [later in his testimony] It seemed to be
moving and approaching the starboard bow, obliquely to the keel;
it looked as though it was only drifting towards us.I saw it
[i.e., saw the Hunley again] as I was running forward after
reporting it; it was abreast of the starboard forward
pivot-gun’s port, about 30 feet off .It was moving astern,
parallel to the ship’s keel.
Henry S. Gifford, Coxswain
and Acting 2nd Captain of the Forecastle: I was on the
forecastle. I saw it [the Hunley] about a point [i.e.,
approximately 12 degrees] forward of the starboard cathead,
about 75 yards distant; it was approaching the starboard quarter
obliquely at the rate of about 2 ½ knots. After it got abeam it
seemed to be moving faster, but in the same direction.
James Timmons, Quarter
Master: I went on watch at 8 P.M. on the Quarter Deck .About
8:40 P.M. I was on the Port side looking seaward, when I heard
the Officer of the Deck call out What is this on the
Water? I ran over to the starboard side and saw a white
ripple on the water a little forward of the beam about 100 yards
distant, heading for the gangway, moving towards the ship at
right angles to the keel. Then the Officer of the Deck called
out, Beat to Quarters When the gong beat, this object
looked like a log, and gave a slew [i.e., a turn] towards the
starboard Quarter of the ship.
John H. Crosby, Acting
Master: I took the deck at 8 P.M. on the night of February
17th. About 8:45, I saw something on the water, which at first
looked to me like a porpoise coming to the surface to blow. It
was about 45 to 100 yards from us on our starboard beam .[later
in his testimony] When I first discovered it, it was approaching
at right angles to the keel, and head pointed amidships; as it
neared the ship I thought it would strike near the mizzen mast,
though it was still approaching at right angles to the keel .[at
a different part of his testimony] As I was going forward I
looked over the side; I saw what appeared to me a plank sharp
at both ends, about 20 feet from the ship’s side; I went
forward, and as I was coming aft again, the explosion took
place.
F. J. Higginson, Lieutenant
and Executive Officer: [In reference to a question about
distance and direction of the Hunley when he first saw it, his
answer was: About 80 yards distant, moving towards the ship at
right angles to the keel, and nearly abreast of the mizzen mast.
John Sanders, Landsman: I
was stationed on lookout on the Starboard Quarter .About 8:45
P.M. I heard the Officer of the Deck say something was coming to
blow us up. I looked and saw something forward of the beam,
about 40 or 50 yards off, moving towards the mizzen chairs,
quite fast.
Charles H. Craven, Ensign:
[When asked in what direction the Hunley approached the ship,
his answer was:] Making about 45 degrees with the keel of the
ship, approaching the counter, coming from forward .[earlier in
his testimony] I then went to my division which is the second,
which consists of four broadside 32 pdr. Guns in the waist, and
tried with the Captain of the No. 6 gun to train it on this
object, as she was backing from the ship, and about 40 or 50
feet off then.
George W. Kelly, Cooper: I
was on the Forecastle a few minutes before 9 P.M. February 17.
I saw something on the water looking like a capsized boat, about
three points [i.e., approximately 35 degrees] on the starboard
bow moving astern nearly parallel with the keel .I was on the
Forecastle only a few seconds then went aft to my Quarters at
the after pivot gun; when I got to the forward end of this gun’s
starboard port I saw this object again about fifteen yards from
the ship making a sort of circle towards the starboard quarter.
Thomas H. Kelly, Seaman and
Doing Duty as Quarter Gunner: I then went directly to the
starboard port of the after pivot gun, looked over the side, and
saw an object in the water about 10 yards distant, right abreast
of this port and moving towards the mizzen rigging.
Charles W. Pickering,
Captain: its [the Hunley’s] position was at right angles to the
ship, bows on, and the bow within two or three feet of the
ship’s side, about abreast of the mizzen mast, and I suppose it
was then fixing the torpedo on. [Question by the Court] Did you
see the Torpedo craft at any other time than that you have
stated? [his answer] I did not, although I looked in every
direction about the ship from the mizzen rigging after the ship
sank [note that Pickering had climbed into the mizzen rigging
after the explosion].
Robert F. Fleming, Landsman
and Lookout on the Starboard Side of the Forecastle: .It
was about 8:25 P.M. I saw something approaching the shipboard
off the starboard bow, about two ship’s lengths off….[later in
his testimony] By this time the object had got within about 30
feet of the starboard quarter, they then beat to quarters. I
ran aft and before I got to my quarters, at No. 4 gun, the
explosion took place. The ship began to settle by the stern
immediately, and I ran forward again and when I got on the
forecastle I saw the object about six or eight feet from the
starboard quarter, apparently stationary, and I fired my musket
at it.[Question by the Court] Did you see this object at any
time after you fired at it? [his answer] I did
not.[note that Fleming had climbed into the fore rigging after
the explosion].
F. H. Crandall, Acting
Ensign: I observed the men on deck were firing at something
directly alongside, and had just time to get to the Starboard
after pivot-gun’s port and to catch a glimpse of the torpedo
boat, which was about five or six feet off, when the explosion
occurred.
Joseph W. Congdon, Acting
Master: [I] looked over the side to see what they were firing
at and saw something that looked like a water logged timber,
touching the starboard side of the ship; I was standing in the
middle of the after-pivot gun’s port, and this object was about
eight feet abaft [i.e., behind] of where I was standing. I drew
my revolver, but, before I could fire, the explosion took
place.[Question by the Court] Did the explosion occur while it
[the Hunley] was alongside the ship? [his answer] It did.
Conclusions: I
think Patricia Cornwell has her work cut out for her if she
wades in on the mystery of the Hunley's sinking. However, my
analysis of the somewhat conflicting testimony is as follows.
The Hunley was first sighted by Housatonic crewmembers about 100
yards off the Housatonic's starboard bow, heading obliquely to
the Housatonic's keel. When the Hunley got a little closer, she
made a slow, right turn to begin her attack run in to the
target. This turn placed the Hunley's centerline at a right
angle to the Housatonic's keel. After fixing the torpedo in the
Housatonic's side somewhere in the vicinity of the mizzenmast,
Dixon began his withdrawal. Three accounts (Fleming's,
Crandall's, and Congdon's) place the Hunley no further than
eight feet from the Housatonic at the time of the explosion,
while one account (Craven's) puts the distance at 40-50 feet.
Interestingly, most of the literature I've seen on the Hunley
focuses on this one account of the distance being 40-50 feet and usually ignores the much closer distance
mentioned by three other eyewitnesses. If the Hunley was within
eight feet of the explosion, then I'll say again that I feel
there is a strong possibility that Dixon was at least
incapacitated for at least 5-10 minutes just after the
explosion. That's enough time for the Hunley to make an
out-of-control, 2-3 degree stern-first descent to the bottom
where she ended up, approximately 300 yards (a little over four
Housatonic boat lengths) from the Housatonic . - Kim
Johnson

Good stuff, Kim.
I've posted a picture in the same Files folder with a
side view of Hunley and cross-section of the Housatonic
(from "Archaeology of a Naval Battlefield: H. L. Hunley
and USS
Housatonic", Conlin & Russell, http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00089.x).
It shows that if the Hunley were perpendicular to the ship
and the spar was angled down, the Hunley's bow could get
pretty close. How close might depend on the length of the
upper spar, assuming there was one. Still, the main body
of the sub would be farther away and farther yet from the
explosion, the major force of which would be expended into
the ship's hull. If we ask the question "what part of
Hunley was each witness looking at?" we might find that
the different distances are consistent.
Michael "jvnautilus"
The theory that the
CSS Hunley sank within minutes of the attack on the USS
Housatonic fails to address the facts (also reported in
the court martial accounts) that survivors saw signals
(the blue lights) exchanged between Battery Marshall and
some point on the water between them and the coast line.
The exchange of the coded signals was confirmed by the CO
of Battery Marshall. This was some time after the sinking
- clearly the submarine survived the initial attack.
Certainly there would have been some impact on the
submarine had it been as close as 8 feet to the hull of
its victim - again this is unlikely. The barbed torpedo
was attached to a lanyard that did not trigger the
explosive until the submarine was a safe distance away.
The Confederates well understood the dynamics of explosive
forces underwater (tested extensively in Charleston Harbor
prior to the development of the David (surface) attack
vessels.
The torpedo rig on
the submarine the night of the attack was the same as used
on the Davids - surface mounted at the bow, extending
forward to approx 2 meters underwater and supported by a
brace attached to the bottom edge of the bow. Everyone
(archaeologists included) have chosen to ignore this fact
even though it was clearly documented in eye witness
reports by engineers who adjusted the rig the night of the
attack.
The impact of the
explosion on the submarine at a safe distance would have
been minimal. The evidence supports the version of the
third crewman who reported the CSS Hunley at a greater
distance from the Housatonic than his crewmates did. The
real remaining mystery is why the submarine ended up as
close to the wreck as it did after having traveled several
miles away after the attack - the reason for this becomes
clear once the tidal dynamics of the area are understood.
"Mark M. Newell" <mmnewell@yahoo.com>Mark,
The assertion that the torpedo could have detonated
prematurely cannot
be dismissed. There are several simple and plausible
explanations,
including an abnormal separation of torpedo and spar
and/or a jammed
lanyard spool.
<<The Confederates well understood the dynamics of
explosive forces
underwater (tested extensively in Charleston Harbor prior
to the
development of the David (surface) attack vessels.>>
The assertion that the blast could have affected Dixon and
others
cannot be dismissed. Some of the energy of the blast would
have caused
a shock wave to travel through the water. Consider the
effect on fish
of a hand grenade exploding under the surface of a pond,
as was common
in WWII. Research (possibly a simulation) would be needed
to determine
the magnitude of the shock wave and its effect on a human
being at
various distances from the hull of the Housatonic. I
believe the
inverse square law comes into play.
http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
The assertion that there was an "out-of-control, 2-3
degree
stern-first descent to the bottom" also cannot be
dismissed. The boat
would have been down at the stern right after the blast.
The trim
would have had to have been adjusted to compensate for the
loss of the
weight of the torpedo. A shocked and panicked crew
frantically
cranking in reverse without regard to hitting bottom is
not beyond the
realm of possibility.
<<The theory... fails to address the facts... that
survivors saw
signals...>>
The theory does indeed contradict the sighting of the blue
light, and
I don't find it to be among the most likely scenarios.
However,
because there is no physical evidence that disproves the
theory, it
cannot be eliminated from the list of possible causes of
the loss of
the Hunley.
<<The torpedo rig on the submarine the night of the attack
was the
same as used on the Davids...>>
This seems like somewhat of an overstatement to me. We
know for
certain that the spar had a single mount point on the bow
of the
Hunley, unlike the dually mounted Y-shaped spar on the bow
of the
original David class boats. The Hunley's mount point
appears to be a
vertical pivot point but it's still a matter of conjecture
whether the
Hunley cruised with her spar raised out of the water (like
the David)
or lowered into attack position.
Keep in mind that Dixon did not abandon the towed torpedo
idea until
very late in the game. The David class boats may have
practiced
extensively but it's quite unlikely that Dixon had the
same
opportunities to practice an attack with a live torpedo.
"Barry Rogoff" <brogoff@rogoff-darrow.net>
--- In
csshlhunley@yahoogroups.com, "Barry Rogoff"
<brogoff@...>
wrote:> the magnitude of the shock wave and its effect on
a human being at > various distances from the hull of the
Housatonic. I believe the > inverse square law comes into
play.>
http://230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
The inverse square
law certainly comes into play for the shock wave,
but that doesn't account for all the energy of the
explosion. The
most destructive energy will attempt to move the water
away from the
blast center and will take the path of least resistance.
In this
case that path was through the Housatonic's hull. This is
what Lee
proved with his torpedo boat experiments and is supported
by the
Housatonic eyewitness accounts. There was no plume of
water and some of the material Kim quotes reports the
torpedo boat or whatever the witnesses were looking at was
stationary after the explosion. This
isn't to discount the effects of the shock wave, but only
to characterize it for what it was, a very, very loud
noise."jvnautilus"
Michael
I like your side-view illustrations of the Hunley's attack
on the Housatonic you recently put in the group files
under "Sinking Theory." I just added a top view, adapted
from an illustration in Dave Conlin's excellent NPS
Housatonic Site Assessment.
Kim

Hello
"It makes me very sad that The Hunley is being caught up in all
the
drama that it is. I was there in Charleston when it was brought
out of
the water. It was amazing the way the town came together and
supported
the project at that time. It seems now that everyone has
forgotten that
she is a real gift to behold for people everywhere. What can we
do as a
group to remind people what the real goal is?" pro_fyrman324
"I think everyone in this group agrees with you.
However, I think the
Friends of the Hunley have exacerbated the problem
by not releasing
information that also belongs to all of us. Many of
us have personally
experienced the frustration of trying to get
information. I'm not
talking about the opinions of the scientists. It's
their right to
withhold those. However, much more raw information
such as
measurements and photos, and even lists of articles
found could have
been released. If the Friends were a more open
organization and
treated the Hunley as belonging to all of us,
perhaps reminding people
of the goal would be an easier task."jvnautilus"
MORE
ABOUT THE MYSTERY SUBMARINE aka LSM Submarine
The New Orleans submarine, now referred to as the
LSM
(Louisiana State Museum) submarine is now on display
at a newly opened museum in Baton Rouge,
directly across the street from the State Capitol
Building. I was there prior to the opening,
photographing the sub. I have not had a chance to
visit the museum since it opened, but it was built to
showcase Louisiana history. There is a complete,
fully restored shrimp boat there, close to three
stories high, about fifty feet from the sub, as well
as the first sugar cane harvester (looks like a corn
harvester) from the 1980's. A beautiful
building.

The pictures attached are from November of 2004. I
was invited to view the sub, and help test fit the
reproduction dive plane on the port side, and take
pictures and measurements for a scale model I am
building for the Baton Rouge and New Orleans (Jackson
Square) locations of the Louisiana State Museum.
The first picture is the sub in the Baton Rouge Museum
after conservation, with a replacement prop fitted.
The sub originally went on display in New Orleans,
1895, at the Spanish Fort/Bayou St. John amusement
park, which was located on the site of the old Spanish
Fort (some brick walls still remain), where Bayou St.
John meets Lake Pontchartrain. In the 1930's due to
land reclamation, an additional 500 yards was built up
in Lake Pontchartrain, so the Fort is inland from the
lake now.
The sub was located by a boy, swimming in Bayou St.
John near the mouth of Pontchartrain, around 1878, and
pulled out of the water by the Corps of Engineers,
being deemed a hazard to navigation. It lay on its
side, on the bank, until 1895, when it was moved and
put on display at the water's edge of the bayou, in
the amusement park.
|