|
2)
What would have happened if the USS Monitor and the CSS H L Hunley had met for
battle
Ironclad pact to aid the CSS H
L HUNLEY and The USS MONITOR
USS Monitor
and the CSS H L Hunley teams to collaborate on preservation
BY BRIAN
HICKS
Of The Post and Courier Staff
originally published Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Click here ti
view original article
If they'd met in their day, the Hunley and the
Monitor would have done their best to blow each other out of the water.
Now, they
might end up saving each other.
On
Tuesday, officials with the USS Monitor Center in Newport News, Va.,
visited the Warren Lasch Conservation Center in North Charleston to
compare notes with Hunley scientists on 19th-century shipwreck
preservation. The meeting is the first step in a collaboration that
could preserve two pioneering maritime vessels -- and result in
technological developments to save many metal artifacts.
With so
many common traits between the first ironclad and the first successful
combat submarine, it only makes sense for scientists to get together to
test their mettle -- or their metal, as the case may be.
How to
safely and effectively preserve the cast and wrought irons the
Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley and Union ironclad Monitor are made of
is the big question on the table. Scientists involved in the talks say
they see a lot of room for common work.
There has
been none of that pesky North-South unpleasantness.
"It's very
appropriate," said Mike Drews, a material science professor at Clemson
working on methods to conserve the Hunley's iron hull. "These ships
represent the technology of this country in the 1800s and the ingenuity
on both sides."
John
Broadwater, manager for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, said he hopes the
two conservation teams can come up with a new way to treat corroded
metal that is safer than known methods, faster and less expensive.
"There are
plenty of opportunities to work together," Broadwater said. "Both the
Monitor and Hunley are sitting in tanks waiting to be conserved. They
are essentially contemporaries, made of cast and wrought iron and
they've been in very similar conditions."
The
Monitor, the Union Navy's first ironclad, made history on March 9, 1862, when it battled a Confederate ironclad, the CSS Virginia
(formerly the USS Merrimack) to a draw. The turreted warship was lost in
a storm later that year and was found in 1973 in 240 feet of water off
the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The ship's engine was raised in 2001
and its massive, 140-ton turret in 2002.
The
Hunley, built in 1863, was lost off Sullivan's
Island
in 1864 after sinking the USS Housatonic. It was buried beneath sand in
less than 30 feet of water. It was recovered in 2000.
The
Monitor sat on the ocean floor, near the
Gulf Stream
and its fluctuating temperatures. The Hunley's environment was decidedly
more stable. Although iron pretty much rusts the same way, complications
still exist.
Paul
Mardikian, the Hunley's senior conservator, said that with the Monitor's
complex engine, his counterparts at the Mariners' Museum -- home of the
Monitor Center -- have a problem similar to his. The engine, like the
Hunley, is made of various types of metal that traditionally have been
conserved using different methods. To proceed on that course would mean
taking the engine, and the Hunley, apart. That, Mardikian said, would
compromise their historical integrity.
"If you
had to take it apart and put it back together again, it would not be the
Hunley," Mardikian said. "We need a more holistic way to approach that
kind of thing."
Already,
the two scientific teams have worked on a joint research proposal to
look at wood conservation. The Monitor had a lot of wooden parts,
including its gun carriage. The Hunley had some wood on board, including
the crew bench, the bellows and a small shelf.
That
project could be the first of many, and might save some of the tax
dollars the two projects have been competing for in past years. That is
a good thing from the perspective of the Navy, which has an interest in
both ships.
"Ideally,
they will stimulate each other's research," said Bob Neyland, head of
the Navy's underwater archaeology program, "not duplicating work, but
complementing it."
It could
be that these two warships will finally achieve what was fought for more
than a century ago: a harmonious union.
Used with permission of The Post
and Courier and Charleston.net
|
Had I lived during this time, the following is my
view of what would have happened between the Monitor and the Hunley
Edited by George
W.
Penington
What would have happened if the
USS Monitor and the CSS H L
Hunley
had met for battle inside Charleston Harbor. The Hunley, less than 40’ long
with a 20’ spar, hand cranking to a top speed of 4 knots would have to rely on
stealth, timing and a surprise attack. (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/monitr-v.htm
)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Monitor Used with permission
|
 HUNLEY |
Ordered: Built as a privateer taken over by Military
August 26, 1863
Laid down:
July 31, 1863 –First trial – Mobile River
Launched:
August 12, 1863 shipped by rail to Charleston, S.C.
Commissioned:
April 1862 Letter of Marquis transferred from the
Pioneer and used to build the Hunley
Fate:
Lost at sea battle February 17, 1864
General
Characteristics
Height:
4’ 3”
Length:
39.5 feet
Beam:
3.5 feet – width at widest point
Draft:
submersible
Speed:
4 knots
Complement:
2 officers and 6 crewmen
Armament:
135 lb. Spar mounted torpedo
CSS Hunley
was most famous for sinking an enemy warship.
|
USS Monitor
was an
ironclad
warship of the
United States Navy. She is most famous for her participation in the
first-ever naval battle between two ironclad warships, the
Battle of Hampton Roads on
March 9,
1862 during the
American Civil War, in which Monitor
Monitor
was one of three ironclad warships ordered by the U.S. Navy, after the
Galena and
New Ironsides. Designed by the brilliant but choleric
Swedish-American engineer
John Ericsson, Monitor was described as a "cheesebox on a raft",
consisting of a heavy, round iron
turret on the deck housing two large
Dahlgren cannon. The armored deck was barely above the waterline. Aside from
a small, boxy pilothouse, a detachable smokestack and a few fittings, the bulk
of the ship was below the waterline to prevent damage from cannon fire.
Monitor's hull was constructed at the Continental Iron Works in the
Greenpoint section of
Brooklyn, New York, and the ship was launched there on
January 30,
1862.
Dahlgren Cannon on The Battery SEQ
Dahlgren_Cannon_on_The_Battery \* This cannon was found toppled over after a
hurricane in Charleston. It was originally one of the cannons from the monitor
USS Keokuk sank off Folly Beach.
Monitor
was innovative in construction technique as well as design. Parts were forged in
nine different foundries and brought together to build the ship, with the entire
process taking less than 120 days. In addition to the "cheesebox", its rotating
turret, Monitor was also the first naval vessel to be fitted with
Ericsson's
marine screw. Ericsson anticipated some aspects of modern
submarine design by placing all of Monitor's features except the
turret and pilothouse underwater, making it the first
semi-submersible ship. In contrast, Virginia was a conventional
wooden vessel covered with iron plates and bearing fixed weapons.
While the design
of the USS Monitor was well-suited for river combat, her low free board
and heavy turret made her highly unseaworthy in rough waters.
The Hunley’s
attack would have had to be made below the sea line with hopes of peircing her
armour where she was most vulnerable. The Hunley’s shallow draft and low profile
would have allowed her to maneuver around in the shallower waters outside the
main channel. By atacking at close range the Hunley would be able to stay under
the firing ability of the Dahlgren cannons aboard the Monitor.
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1-The Monitor in Charleston
Harbor
The Hunley was docked in Mt. Pleasant and was being
re-furbished after sinking in November of 1863. She would have been ready to
attack the Monitor by coming out of The Cove to meet her in the Middle of
Charleston Harbor. This would have been a battle where the stealth of the
Hunley would prevail. Ramming her torpedo into the side of the Monitor below
her protected top side, in a harbor where the water is calm would have been
perfect. The Monitor even though she was faster would not have been able to
fire her cannons at close range and she would have had to stand off out of range
of the cannons at Fort Moultrie if she could. The Cannon fire from Moultrie,
the Battery downtown and Fort Sumter would have kept the Monitor distracted.
Charleston also had the Chicora and The Palmetto State ready to ram at anytime.
There was also the Davids to contend with. Even though the Monitor was twice as
fast as the Hunley, eight knots was not a highly maneuverable speed particularly
with the torpedoes (mines) and other obstructions which were not clearly visible
to the enemy.
“
If they'd met in their day, the Hunley and the Monitor would have done their
best to blow each other out of the water. “
Even though
Charleston
was suffering from the Blockade, the Federals were never able to penetrate the
Harbor defenses and bring a ship inside the port.
The Hunley would have attacked
through The Cove.
3)But
now, they might end up saving each other.
Officials with the USS Monitor Center in Newport News, Va., visited the Warren
Lasch Conservation Center in North Charleston to compare notes with Hunley
scientists on 19th-century shipwreck preservation. The meeting is the first step
in a collaboration that could preserve two pioneering maritime vessels -- and
result in technological developments to save many metal artifacts.
With
so many common traits between the first ironclad and the first successful combat
submarine, it only makes sense for scientists to get together to test their
mettle -- or their metal, as the case may be.
How
to safely and effectively preserve the cast and wrought irons the Confederate
submarine H.L.
Hunley and Union ironclad
Monitor are made of is the big question on the table. Scientists involved in the
talks say they see a lot of room for common work.
There
has been none of that pesky North-South unpleasantness.
"It's
very appropriate," said Mike
Drews,
a material science professor at Clemson working on methods to conserve the
Hunley's iron hull. "These ships represent the technology of this country in the
1800s and the ingenuity on both sides."
John
Broadwater,
manager for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Monitor
National Marine Sanctuary, said he hopes the two conservation teams can come up
with a new way to treat corroded metal that is safer than known methods, faster
and less expensive.
"There are plenty of opportunities to work together," Broadwater said. "Both the
Monitor and Hunley are sitting in tanks waiting to be conserved. They are
essentially contemporaries, made of cast and wrought iron and they've been in
very similar conditions."
The
Monitor, the Union Navy's first ironclad, made history on March 9, 1862, when it
battled a Confederate ironclad, the CSS Virginia (formerly the USS Merrimack) to
a draw. The turreted warship was lost in a storm later that year and was found
in 1973 in 240 feet of water off the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The ship's
engine was raised in 2001 and its massive, 140-ton turret in 2002.
The
Hunley, built in 1863, was lost off Sullivan's Island in 1864 after sinking the
USS Housatonic. It was buried beneath sand in less than 30 feet of water. It was
recovered in 2000.
The
Monitor sat on the ocean floor, near the Gulf Stream and its fluctuating
temperatures. The Hunley's environment was decidedly more stable. Although iron
pretty much rusts the same way, complications still exist.
Paul
Mardikian,
the Hunley's senior conservator, said that with the Monitor's complex engine,
his counterparts at the Mariners' Museum -- home of the
Monitor
Center
-- have a problem similar to his. The engine, like the Hunley, is made of
various types of metal that traditionally have been conserved using different
methods. To proceed on that course would mean taking the engine, and the Hunley,
apart. That, Mardikian said, would compromise their historical integrity.
"If
you had to take it apart and put it back together again, it would not be the
Hunley," Mardikian said. "We need a more holistic way to approach that kind of
thing."
Already, the two scientific teams have worked on a joint research proposal to
look at wood conservation. The Monitor had a lot of wooden parts, including its
gun carriage. The Hunley had some wood on board, including the crew bench, the
bellows and a small shelf.
That
project could be the first of many, and might save some of the tax dollars the
two projects have been competing for in past years. That is a good thing from
the perspective of the Navy, which has an interest in both ships.
"Ideally, they will stimulate each other's research," said Bob
Neyland,
head of the Navy's underwater archaeology program, "not duplicating work, but
complementing it."
It
could be that these two warships will finally achieve what was fought for more
than a century ago: a harmonious union.
|
ABOUT THE VESSELS
USS MONITOR
 Lost
: Battled the CSS Virginia (formerly the USS Merrimack) in 1862. Sank in a
storm in 1862
Found
: When: 1973
Where: On the ocean floor off the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
How deep: 240 feet of water
Environment: Near the Gulf Stream and its fluctuating temperatures
Raised:
Engine in 2001; turret in 2002
H.L. HUNLEY
 Lost
Sank the USS Housatonic
Sank off Sullivan's Island in 1864 after that battle.
Found
When: 1970 by E. Lee
Spence
Where: Beneath sand off Sullivan's Island
How deep: less than 30 feet of water
Environment: Much more stable than the Monitor
Raised:
2000.
SIMILARITIES
Iron:
Both have cast iron and wrought iron that needs preservation.
Different metals:
The Monitor's engine and all of the Hunley have different types of metal
that traditionally have been conserved using different methods.
Woods:
The Monitor has wooden parts, including its gun carriage. Hunley has some
wood on board, including the crew's bench.
Inside Hunley shows bench on Port Side SEQ
Inside_Hunley_shows_bench_on_Port_Side \* ARABIC 1 |
Original U.S. Navy Documents
Order of Rear-Admiral Dahlgren, U.S. Navy,
commanding South Atlantic Blockading Squadron,
ordering defensive measures against Confederate torpedo boats.
FLAG-STEAMER PHILADELPHIA,
Off Morris Island, South
Carolina, January 7, 1864.
I have reliable information that the rebels have two torpedo boats
ready for service, which may be expected on the first night when the water
is suitable for their movement. One of these is the "David,"
which attacked the Ironsides in October; the other is similar to it.
There is also one of another kind [H.
L. Hunley], which is nearly submerged
and can be entirely so. It is intended to go under the bottoms of vessels
and there operate.
This is believed by my informant to be sure of well working,
though from bad management it has hitherto met with accidents, and was lying
off Mount Pleasant two nights since.
There being every reason to expect a visit from some or all of
these torpedoes, the greatest vigilance will be needed to guard against
them.
The ironclads must have their fenders rigged out and their own
boats in motion about them.
A netting must also be dropped overboard from the ends of the
fenders, kept down with shot, and extending along the whole length of the
sides; howitzers loaded with canister on the decks and a calcium [light] for
each monitor. The tugs and picket boats must be incessantly upon the
lookout, when the water is not rough, whether the weather be clear or rainy.
I observe the ironclads are not anchored so as to be entirely
clear of each other's fire if opened suddenly in the dark. This must be
corrected, and Captain Rowan will assign the monitors suitable positions for
this purpose, particularly with reference to his own vessel.
It is also advisable not to anchor in the deepest part of the
channel, for by not leaving much space between the bottom of the vessel and
the bottom of the channel it will be impossible for the diving torpedo to
operate except on the sides, and there will be less difficulty in raising a
vessel if sunk.
JOHN A.
DAHLGREN,
Rear-Admiral, Comdg. South
Atlantic Blockading Squadron.
Source: Official Records of the
Union and Confederate Navies in
the War of the Rebellion. Series
II, vol. 1 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1921): 226-227.
|
<maclilus@p...>
wrote:
> On this last
note, how did the "Hunley" keep an even keel if the whole crew were on one
side (I presume the port side). How did it maintain a
even while docked when everyone was ashore.
The crank is
offset to starboard and the crank mounts are attached to the starboard
side. This would offset the crew's weight to some
degree. In a press
release a year or two ago,
Maria Jacobsen
theorized that
the small size of the cabin forced the crew to lean forward, centering
their weight somewhat. See the reconstruction
rendering on
bottom of this page,
http://home.att.net/~JVNautilus/Hunley/reconstruction.html,
for an
view of the cabin size with a crewman. There
were a number of loose cast iron bars on the cabin floor, probably with
rope loops
attached, that could
be moved around to trim the boat.
On your last
note, I
believe there is an historic account that says
the boat did list when no-one was aboard.
Michael
|
|
4)
Information
on the Hunley obtained by the U.S. Navy from the
interrogation of Confederate deserters.
JANUARY 7, 1864.
The "American Diver," [H. L. Hunley] was built at Mobile
and was brought on two platform cars from Mobile to Charleston; saw her in
all stages of construction at Mobile. Sometimes worked near her in the same
shop. Thinks she is about 35 feet long; height about same as "David" (5½
feet); has propellers at the end; she is not driven by steam, but her
propeller is turned by hand. Has two manholes on the upper side, about 12 to
14 feet apart. The entrance into her is through these manholes, the covers
being turned back. They are all used to look out of. (Will give a sketch and
description of her.) She has had bad accidents hitherto, but was owing to
those in her not understanding her. Thinks that she can be worked perfectly
safe by persons who understand her. Can be driven 5 knots an hour without
exertion to the men working her. Manholes are about 16 inches high and are
just above water when trimmed. Believes was brought here about 1st
September; has seen her working in the water afloat; passed her in the
gigshe being [sic] the last time before his arrival. Has drowned three
crews, one at Mobile and two here, 17 men in all. When she went down the
last time, was on the bottom two weeks before she was raised. Saw her when
she was raised the last time. They then hoisted her out of the water,
refitted her, and got another crew. Saw her after that submerged. Saw her go
under the Indian Chief, and then saw her go back under again. She
made about one-half mile in the dives. Saw her dive under the Charleston;
went under about 250 feet from her, and came up about 300 feet beyond her.
Was about twenty minutes under the water when she went under the Indian
Chief. Her keel is of cast iron, in sections, which can be cast loose
when she wishes to rise to the surface of the water. Believes she is at
Mount Pleasant. One of her crew, who belongs to this vessel, came back for
his clothes, and said she was going down there as a station, where they
would watch her time for operations.
Source: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War
of the Rebellion. Series II, vol. 1 (Washington, Government Printing
Office, 1921): 229
U.S. Navy
Interrogation of George L. Shipp, Confederate deserter, regarding the
Hunley.
JANUARY 8, 1864
Believes that the "American Diver" [H. L. Hunley] is at
Mount Pleasant; saw her when they were getting the drowned men out of her.
She was pulled upon the wharf at the time. He was about 30 yards from her.
There were seven men drowned in her. Was looking at her when she went down
60 yards from the receiving ship. She went down several times but came up
again. She would stay under water ten minutes each time, and would come up
75 to 80 yards from where she went down. At last she went down and would not
come up again. She remained down nine days before she was raised. This was
about two months ago. She was then taken to the wharf and hauled up. They
launched her again in about a week, but nothing was done with her until
lately, when they fitted her up again and sent her down to Mount Pleasant,
where she now is. Does not know that she has dived since. It was promised to
the men that went in her that she would not dive again. When she does not
dive, she only shows two heads above the water about the size of a man's
head. He thinks she is about 20 feet long and the manholes are about 8 feet
apart. She is made of iron.
Source: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War
of the Rebellion. Series II, vol. 1 (Washington, Government Printing
Office, 1921): 231.
Report of
Rear-Admiral Dahlgren, U.S. Navy, regarding the
Confederate "Davids" and the "Diver" (H.L.
Hunley).
No. 16.]
FLAG-STEAMER PHILADELPHIA,
Off Morris Island, January 13, 1864.
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge having received your letter of the
5th instant, enclosing one from Mr. Haynes.
The information therein contained is, I doubt not, substantially
correct in general.
One week ago, however, two deserters made known to me the whole
project more in detail, confirming much that I had previously suspected.
It seems there are ten "Davids" building in Charleston, similar to
that which torpedoed the Ironsides. Of these, one is completed and
ready for service; the others are in different stages from the mere keel to
a more advanced stage.
The "Diver," [H. L. Hunley] as she is now called, is also
ready, and with the original "David" is now at Mount Pleasant, [S. C.], on
the lookout for a chance.
The action of the "Davids" has been, of course, pretty well
exemplified on the Ironsides; that of the "Diver" is different, as it
is intended to submerge completely, get under the bottom, attach the
torpedo, haul off and pull trigger. So far the trials have been unlucky,
having drowned three crews of 17 men in all. Still she does dive, as one of
the deserters saw her pass twice under the bottom of the vessel he was in
and once under the Charleston. The "Diver" can also be used as a
"David," so that there are really three of these machines ready to operate.
On receiving this intelligence I caused additional means of
prevention to be used, as will be seen by copies of enclosed orders, and the
Department may be assured that if any of our monitors are injured it will
not be for lack of the utmost vigilance.
It is only in smooth water, and when the tide is slack, that any
danger is imminent. As my flagship is disabled in the rudder, and has
therefore to remain in the inlet, I leave her at night, go aboard of some
steamer in the roads, and pass the night near the ironclads, giving my own
personal attention to their condition. Last night I went up to the advanced
monitor about 9 o'clock. It was an ugly, rainy night, but I found all on the
alert. It is indeed dangerous to approach an ironclad, as they fire on the
instant. Besides their outriggers and submerged nettings, the water in
advanced and around is patrolled by several steam tugs and a number of
cutters, while the scout boats are thrown out far ahead.
If those who so ignorantly or basely endeavor to persuade the
public that the monitors here are idle could witness one night of such
vigils, they would feel disgraced at having so wantonly traduced the
officers and men, who give themselves to such incessant and hard service; a
battle would be far preferable.
There is, no doubt, much to be apprehended from these torpedoes,
and I have already suggested to the Department an extensive use of similar
means. I again respectfully urge on your consideration the most prompt
resort thereto; nothing better could be devised for the security of our own
vessels or for an examination of the enemy's position.
The length of these torpedo boats might be about 40 feet, and 5 to
6 feet in diameter, with a high- pressure engine that will drive them 5
knots. It is not necessary to expend much finish on them.
With the ample mechanical means of the North it seems that in one
month five or six could be gotten into service.
The deserters say that the rebels believe that their batteries
will do us much damage if we attack, but rely chiefly on the torpedoes for
defense, and apply them in a variety of ways, at the bows of their
ironclads, upon their "Davids," upon rafts, which carry six of the
60-pounders in a line, and even their small boats are equipped to receive a
torpedo.
I regret to find that the strike among the mechanics (referred to
by the Department December 3) has delayed the completion of the monitors
Onondaga, Tecumseh and Canonicus even beyond the date (January 1)
anticipate by the Department (December 3).
They will be very welcome when they do come.
The Nantucket and Montauk are the only monitors here
in the hands of the mechanics. The latter requires some attention to her
boilers, which are rather tender, and a new gun; the Nantucket
requires the additions, repairs, etc.
I shall be ready, however, when the Onondaga, Canonicus,
Tecumseh, and Sangamon arrive.
Yesterday I had an interview with the agent for raising the
Weehauken. He informs me that he is proceeding as rapidly as possible
with the work, and proposes to construct a wooden coffer, so as to pump the
water from above the vessel as well as out of her.
The following statement by one of the deserters is of interest: He
is a mechanic from Michigan, and some for years since crossed into Kentucky,
pursuing his vocation. Moving about, he at last found himself in Alabama,
driving an engine on the railroad from Montgomery to Mobile. Forced by the
conscription to bear arms, he chose the Navy as affording better chance to
leave, and was sent to Charleston, where he was put into a boat. He, with
two others, watched their chance for two months. It is evident that when the
rebels are compelled to use such men as engineers and mechanics to pull a
bow oar, they are consuming their own vitals.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
JNO. A. DAHLGREN,
Rear-Admiral, Comdg. South Atlantic Blockading Squadron.
Hon. GIDEON WELLES,
Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D. C.
Source: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the
War of the Rebellion. Series II, vol. 1 (Washington, Government Printing
Office, 1921): 238-239.
|
|
·
CSS
David type spar torpedo-
This is a very simple
construction. This torpedo is simply a container of powder on the end of a
pole. The end of the container is fitted with Captain Lee's acid/chemical
fuse or several Raines sensitive primers.
The pole was affixed to a
torpedo boat or gunboat at the bow. The torpedo was kept above the
waterline until just prior to ramming. Care had to be taken that when the
torpedo was placed in the water, that the pole did not break allowing the
torpedo to buckle back under the torpedo boat.
The torpedo had to be
lowered into and under the water to allow it to strike the hull of the enemy
ship below the waterline. It was desirable that the torpedo be command
detonated. Early trials found a problem with this though in that if the
torpedo was command detonated and the person firing the devise hesitated
even slightly, that a rebound would take place and the intervening body of
water cushioned the explosion.
There were a couple of
variants of the Confederate torpedo boat. The semi-submersible, of which
several were made, was generically referred to as a David, after the name of
the first of these boats launched by the Confederates, the CSS David. This
boat was submerged except for the very top of the boat. The boat was never
designed to be a submarine, but simply to be a stealthy boat for approaching
enemy ships.
A second torpedo boat was
simply a small, steam powered launch with a spar torpedo fixed to the bow.
These drew about as much water as a boat's launch. This type of torpedo
boat, commanded by Lt. Hunter Davidson, CSN, attacked and severely damaged
the USS Minnesota at
Newport News,
VA, in April 1864.
A general rule of thumb was
that the torpedo on the spar had to be at least 15 and preferably 25 feet
forward of the bow.
http://www.infernal-machines.com/_sgt/m1m1_1.htm
|
|
5)COMMENTS
FROM MIKE KOCHAN ABOUT TORPEDOES
[CSS H L HUNLEY] torpedo effect
evilmike2@aol.com
The only
torpedo I know that was designed for a shaped charge effect was the Wood and
Lay spar torpedo
Lt.
Cushing used
against the "C.S.S.
Albemarle".
The detonation was while it was
in an upright position close to the hull. The ignition started at the nose
(bottom) and the expanding gasses in the tank pushed aside a baffle, then
traveling upward in the tank taking up the air space at the top. When the
force ruptured the tank it was not multi directional but perpendicular the
upward expansion concentration the force against the hull along side the
torpedo. At least that’s what the
Patents say.
A re-enactor with a loaded blank
charge fell and got some dirt in the muzzle of his musket. When ordered to
fire, the expanding gasses from the breech were stopped by the dirt at the
muzzle, then the breech blew apart messing up his hand and face.
Confederate view:...The idea was
to get the tank at least 6 feet underwater. You can't compress a liquid so
the surrounding weight of water helps confine the explosion into the hull.
Some of the early experiments with row boats having spar torpedoes on them
being forced against an old barge or scow, would blow the vessel to atoms
but not harm the row boat only 10 feet away!!
I believe the 90lb torpedo on the
Hunley was the size of the one towed behind her on the surface.
The 130 odd pound Singer torpedo
seems to make sense, size and
design. The 16 inch diameter and
24 inch long tank is a great design with multiple trigger ignition points at
the center of the tank. This would ensure a most efficient burning of almost
all the powder in the tank.
If you could imagine
Pickett's
charge at Gettysburg, where the
Confederates had about 140 pieces
of artillery fire at the union forces to soften up their position. They
basically took a one pound service charge and if they all fired at once,
that would be the force coming out of the torpedo next to the hull of the
"Housatonic'.
That's why it blew the stern
quarter off , broke the prop shaft and sank her in less than 5 minutes.
Some spar torpedoes were only
12lbs in size and some 5 pounders were to be used in the
James river
below Richmond. Those were for Pickett boats at night. If a mistake were
made at night they would only damage their own vessel and not destroy it.
During the war 4 monitors went
down when they removed torpedoes by hitting them. (a little joke) That's
what the fellow Officers said of the Capt. of the "Cairo"
said about him when his ship was the first to go down after hitting a
torpedo.
The Monitor hulls were only about
3/4 of an inch thick and the seams would open up from the charge. Two went
down in about 35 seconds. The other 2 were broader river types and stuck
around for about a half hour before going down.
Mikes Book
TORPEDOES
- Another Look at the
Infernal Machines of the Civil War
can be
purchased through
The Hunley Store or
Direct
|
|
|
6)
Twenty-one
More Confederate Soldiers Buried
BRUCE SMITH
Associated Press
Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:35 AM
CHARLESTON, S.C. -
Hundreds of re-enactors will slowly march into
Magnolia
Cemetery on Saturday for the funeral of 21 Confederates
whose remains were recovered last summer from beneath The Citadel's
football stadium.
It will be the fourth Confederate funeral in six years in this city
where the opening shots of the Civil War were fired at
Fort Sumter
in 1861.
The largest was last
April when
thousands of re-enactors took part
in the funeral for the third crew of the Confederate submarine
H.L.
Hunley, which was
raised off Charleston in 2000.
During that funeral, re-enactors wearing both blue and gray escorted
horse-drawn caissons with the coffins of the crewmen draped in
Confederate flags.
The procession made its way about five miles from
Charleston's
Battery to the
cemetery overlooking the Cooper River.
This time, between 200 and 300 re-enactors are expected.
The units will form at the cemetery gate and march to an area where
other Confederate war dead are buried, said Randy Burbage, chairman
of the Confederate Heritage Trust and a past commander of Secession
Camp No. 4 of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
"We're just glad for an opportunity to bury them in a more
respectable place. It will certainly be a more peaceful place," said
Burbage, who is
also a member of the South Carolina Hunley
Commission.
During funerals in 1999 and 2000, the remains of 41 other
Confederates found beneath the stadium were buried at Magnolia. The
stadium was built over an old mariners graveyard in 1948, but the
bodies were never removed because of a clerical error.
The 2000 funeral was for the five members of the first Hunley crew.
They drowned in the fall of 1863 when water from the wake of a
passing ship flooded the sub near its mooring on nearby
James Island.
A second crew later drowned during a testing accident. The Hunley
sank with its third crew after sending the Union blockade ship
Housatonic to the
bottom off Charleston in 1864, becoming the first
sub in history to sink an enemy warship.
The Confederates to be buried on Saturday have not been identified
although historical records indicate that, besides sailors and
marines, soldiers from the 21st North Carolina Infantry were buried
at the stadium site.
"The 21st
North Carolina was
here during the siege of
Charleston
toward the end of the war,"
Burbage
said. "It was late in 1864 when
most of them died."
The war ended the following spring.
Organizers said the 1999 funeral was the largest in the state since
1871, when the bodies of 86
South Carolinians
who died at Gettysburg
were returned to the state.
___________________________________________
7)
HORACE L HUNLEY’S WILL FOUND
:csshlhunley@yahoogroups.com
From:
"myk0704" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Date:
Fri, 01 Apr 2005 03:57:47 -0000
Subject:
[CSS H L HUNLEY]
Hunley papers
among records recovered from Covington home
By DEBRA LEMOINE
dlemoine@theadvocate.com
Florida parishes bureau
Nine years ago, Prieto had just started her term as the St. Tammany
Parish clerk of court when Mandeville resident John Hunley, no
relation to Horace, couldn't find the papers in the parish archives.
He thought she destroyed the documents because a Prieto is listed as
owing money to Horace Hunley, Prieto said.
In response, Prieto said she called for an inventory of the entire
parish archives, but the records never turned up.
"We jumped through hoops going through every archive file," Prieto
said. "Sometimes old files get stuck behind each other. We searched
for months."
Capt. Horace L. Hunley died Oct. 15, 1863, when his submarine, CSS
H.L. Hunley, sank in the harbor of Charleston, S.C., during a test
dive, according to the Friends of the Hunley. Four months later,
Hunley's submarine made naval history when it rammed a torpedo
attached to a spar into the side of the USS Housatonic and sank the
Union warship. The Hunley went down in history as the first
submarine to sink an enemy warship.
Moments later, the Hunley itself sank again in Charleston Harbor.
This time It was recovered from the water in 2000.
Hunley owned a plantation in Covington and served as a state
legislator and as the deputy customs collector in New Orleans, said
the Friends of the Hunley.
His will and succession documents -- outlining his descendants and
parents and inventorying the entire estate -- were filed in the St.
Tammany Parish Clerk's Office.
Prieto had given up on finding Hunley's handwritten documents in the
parish's basement archival room but kept Hunley in the back of her
mind for the past nine years. She even visited the museum dedicated
to Hunley's famous invention during a trip to Charleston.
"The minute that my department was told some old documents were
found, I thought, 'Maybe the Hunley's there,'" Prieto said.
On Tuesday, Prieto opened a box at the office of the deceased
woman's estate attorney. Prieto found a manila folder with the
word "submarine" written on it under a stack of papers.
She found the Hunley documents inside the folder in its original
jacket from the Clerk's Office, Prieto said.
Deputies from the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office arrested on
Wednesday the ex-husband of the deceased woman, Thomas Todd Valois,
39, of Covington. Valois is an amateur historian who worked as an
archivist for the Clerk's Office from 1988 to 1993, Sheriff's Office
spokesman James Hartman said.
|
Note: Valois remained in St. Tammany
Parish Jail Wednesday afternoon in lieu of $19,550 bond for failure to
appear. He had not yet been given a bond for Wednesday's charges, said
Hartman, but prior arrests records indicate he had been arrested 11 times,
mostly since 2000, on theft and domestic disturbance charges.
|
When confronted with the discovery, Valois confessed to taking the
documents, Hartman said.
|
The documents were found in a four drawer file cabinet at the home of Bethel
Marie Bradley, a Covington woman who died last month. Her ex husband, Thomas
Todd Valois, a former employee in the clerk's office, was arrested Wednesday
after he admitted stealing the records more than 10 years ago, authorities
said.
For years, a local researcher hounded Prieto about the
missing records, even accusing Prieto of stealing them because one of her
ancestors owed Hunley money. It was the first thing to come to Prieto's mind
when the file cabinet surfaced.
"I said, 'Wait a minute. I want to see one thing,' " she
said.
Before giving the boxes to sheriff's investigators, she
flipped to find the Hunley file, scanning it until she found a debt listed
simply as "Owed by Prieto
5,000 Confederate dollars, valued at $500," she said,
explaining that it must refer to one of her family's first settlers in the
region.
Prieto said Valois could have reaped a hefty profit by
selling the Hunley records on the black market, which leads her to believe
he didn't steal them for monetary gain.
http://www.nola.com/sttammany/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1112253987305720.xml#continue
By Meghan Gordon and Paul Rioux
St. Tammany bureau Meghan Gordon can be reached at
mgordon@timespicayune.com or (985) 898-4827. Paul Rioux can be reached at
prioux@timespicayune.com or (985) 645-2852.
|
Deputies quoted Valois as telling them he took the Hunley documents
and other parish records -- enough to fill a four-drawer filing
cabinet -- from the 1800s and early 1900s for his writing projects,
Hartman said.
Valois was booked into the St. Tammany Parish Prison on counts of
possession of stolen property and injuring public records.
No bail had been set as of Wednesday evening, Hartman said. The
parish has 72 hours to set a bond amount, he said.
Valois, who has a history of arrests on thefts, burglary and
domestic battery, had left personal items, such as his clothes and
the stolen documents at his ex-wife's house, Hartman and Prieto said.
Prieto said there is a black market for historical documents, but
she believes Valois probably took them for personal use because he
kept them for so long.
She also said there was no real pattern to what he took other than
the fact that the documents are more than 100 years old. There were
entire books removed or sometimes just single sheets sliced from
books from the archives, she said.
The recovered papers with the most historic significance are the
Hunley documents, she said.
Among the recovered documents are the land sale records to create
the Covington Cemetery and an 1870 loyalty oath and a 1874 pension
application by War of 1812 veteran and former Judge Jesse Jones, and
hand-drawn and colored survey maps, Prieto said.
Also recovered are an inch-thick hardbound minute book of 1905
meetings of the Covington Bank and Trust, five sets of election
results between 1826 and 1841 and several criminal records from the
1880s, Prieto said
The Associated Press
A man who once worked in the St. Tammany Parish clerk of court's
office has been accused of stealing historical documents - including
the handwritten will of Horace L. Hunley, the inventor of the famed
Confederate submarine.
Thomas Valois allegedly admitted to the thefts and was charged with
possession of stolen property and injuring public records Wednesday,
according to sheriff's spokesman James Hartman.
Capt. Hunley died Oct. 15, 1863, when his submarine, the CSS H.L.
Hunley, sank in the harbor of Charleston, S.C., during a test dive.
Four months later, Hunley's submarine made naval history when it
rammed a torpedo attached to a spar into the side of the USS
Housatonic and sank the Union warship. The Hunley went down in
history as the first submarine to sink an enemy warship.
In addition to the Hunley papers, Valois allegedly stole land sale
records for the Covington Cemetery, an 1870 loyalty oath, survey
maps, an inch-thick hard-bound minute book of 1905 meetings of the
Covington Bank and Trust, five sets of election results between 1826
and 1841, and several criminal records from the 1880s.
Hunley owned a plantation in Covington and served as a state
legislator and as the deputy customs collector in New Orleans,
according to the Friends of the Hunley, a South Carolina commission
set up to preserve the submarine.
The submarine sank in Charleston Harbor and was not found until
1995. It was recovered from the water in 2000.
Sheriff's deputies recovered the documents from the estate of
Valois' ex-wife, who died Feb. 28. Valois worked as an archivist for
the clerk's office from 1988 to 1993 and was an amateur historian.
Hartman said Valois told deputies he took the Hunley documents and
other parish records - enough to fill a four-drawer filing cabinet -
from the 1800s and early 1900s for his writing projects.
Valois remained in jail Thursday. Hartman said Valois had a history
of arrests on thefts, burglary and domestic battery charges.
The discovery of the Hunley papers came as a pleasant surprise for
Malise Prieto, the current clerk of court for St. Tammany Parish, a
New Orleans suburb known for picturesque small towns and mansions.
Shortly after taking over as clerk of court nearly a decade ago,
Prieto said she was accused by a Mandeville resident of destroying
the Hunley will and succession records because a Prieto was listed
as owing money to the submarine inventor.
In response, Prieto said she called for an inventory of the entire
parish archives, but the records never turned up.
"We jumped through hoops going through every archive file," Prieto
recalled. "Sometimes old files get stuck behind each other. We
searched for months."
________________________________________
8)"Submarines
Past & Present." by
Lewis Spence
Just bought "This
Year's Book for Boys", published in 1919. Article by Lewis Spence,
"Submarines Past & Present." It has this excerpt relating to the "Hunley":
"In 1864 during the American Civil War the naval
authorities of the Southern States designed a number of iron cigar-shaped
submersible boats, some of which were propelled by steam-engines, whilst
others more primitive were driven by manual power. These were intended to
steal underneath the war vessels of the Northern States and discharge a
torpedo against them, and this they succeeded in doing on more than one
occasion. One of them, a vessel about 50 feet in length, carrying a crew of
nine men, attacked the Northern ship "Housatonic"
and destroyed her by means of a torpedo. But the submarine was included in
the general disaster owing to the carelessness or fear of her crew, who,
instead of submerging her, sunk her to the deck only, so that the tremendous
wave caused by the explosion of the torpedo swamped her at once, and she was
lost."
There is a nice illustration of her attacking the
"Housatonic"
but with one man standing in the front portal. If I get it scanned, I'll post
it.
maclilus
|
9)
LEADERSHIP CIVIL WAR WITH THE SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS
Sent in
by
Lee
Cross
February
20, 2005
Friends
and Compatriots,
Heartfelt thanks for the financial support in serious business regarding the
hijacking of the leadership of our SCV.
The details are now beginning to filter back to me and I’m getting the true
picture of what is going on. I’m not going to wait until the next
newsletter and next camp meeting to explain this situation. I will be
mailing out to the general membership a detailed explanation of the
circumstances of these events. You are all entitled to an explanation and I
shall see that you get it. Without hesitation; and with 100% support of
those members I’ve been able to contact within the last 48 hours; we have a
firm commitment from the men in the amount of $1,275 which is likely to be
increased soon. Of this, $500 has already been received. I hope to have
received all of your donations by
noon
this coming Wednesday; at which point, after depositing all funds, I will
send an express mail letter with our check to the “Emergency Reform Fund” in
Texas.
I’m always available to answer any questions I can, and you all know how to
reach me. If not around; I return all calls. Until next, all for now!
Lee
February
23, 2005
From the
“Lt Dixon – CSS
Hunley
Camp
#2016” of
Sparks,
Nevada
Gentlemen and to all Concerned,
There is
no such thing as a Commander
Hodges
and he will not be recognized as such in this camp. Nor will he or any
other co-conspirators be received here. We speak as a united front and
pledge our support and resources to
Commander
Sweeney.
Lee
Cross,
Cmdr.
Friends
and Compatriots,
I have
received numerous communications regarding the power grab in the
SCV;
and they keep coming. This attachment from the
South
Carolina
Division best explains what is going on. So far every division which has
responded has sided with the commander. If any of you wish to see more
attachments regarding this crisis, let me know and I’ll send them along. It
would appear from everything I’ve seen that the usurpers have overestimated
their strength and influence and I suspect this will come down on them
heavily. Again, I thank all of the membership and associates for the strong
show of support. Our pledges so far exceed $1,300; of which I’ve already
received $700. Please send them to me ASAP. To some of the respondents
here I apologize for the redundancy; the quickest way to get this to our
membership is to use the meeting reminder and newsletter lists which your
names are also on. I will keep you all informed. Best regards!
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: CVNews-bounces@csaweb.org [mailto:CVNews-bounces@csaweb.org] On Behalf
Of
James
Dark
Sent:
Sunday,
February 20, 2005 4:04 PM
To: cvnews@csaweb.org
Subject: [CVNews] FW: Call to Arms form the
South
Carolina Division
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From:
M.
Givens
[mailto:scscv@charter.net]
Sent:
Sunday,
February 20, 2005 5:25 PM
To: jim.dark@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Call to Arms form the
South
Carolina
Division
coup d'é·tat: The sudden
overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or
previously in positions of authority.
Compatriots of the
South Carolina Division,
Sons of Confederate Veterans,
It has been said many
times over, “We have plenty of enemies outside of the SCV, we don’t need to
fight among ourselves.” I only wish this could be the case. But an internal
and internecine war has been thrust upon us.
The government of the
SCV has b | |
