CSS Georgia Recovery

I should have said 'relatively' intact, in comparison to the Georgia, which currently looks like it was hit by an asteroid.

I keep waiting for them to get their act together and raise the Tecumseh. I don't know if there are any plans to rescue any more of the original Monitor. Looking at what's left, I don't know if there would be anything in any state left to raise. I was hoping that attention would then turn to Mobile Bay.
 
Last edited:
I keep waiting for them to get their act together and raise the Tecumseh. I don't know if there are any plans to rescue any more of the original Monitor. Looking at what's left, I don't know if there would be anything in any state left to raise. I was hoping that attention would then turn to Mobile Bay.

Both Westfield and Georgia were recovered because they lie in navigable waterways that were slated for major improvements (i.e. dredging) that would affect the site. Under current U.S. law, the CofE was obligated to do these projects. For sites not in similar situations, I don't see much likelihood of major excavation/recovery work, as it's just too expensive to do without a legal mandate requiring it. A fairly well-known person who has been intimately involved with projects like these for many years said recently, on this subject, that "Monitor and Hunley broke the bank" when it comes to projects like these. It costs too much, and there's not deep enough public support for committing the funds to do it.
 
I keep waiting for them to get their act together and raise the Tecumseh.

There are a number of challenges facing any attempts at Tecumseh, I understand, including fairly difficult diving conditions. There is also the consideration that the site is a grave for 90+ individuals; that's not necessarily a stopper in and of itself but definitely tends to slam the brakes on.

The money's just not there at the moment; and considering the funding situation that Monitor is in, I'm not eager for them to start picking at Tecumseh right now.
 
Both Westfield and Georgia were recovered because they lie in navigable waterways that were slated for major improvements (i.e. dredging) that would affect the site. Under current U.S. law, the CofE was obligated to do these projects. For sites not in similar situations, I don't see much likelihood of major excavation/recovery work, as it's just too expensive to do without a legal mandate requiring it. A fairly well-known person who has been intimately involved with projects like these for many years said recently, on this subject, that "Monitor and Hunley broke the bank" when it comes to projects like these. It costs too much, and there's not deep enough public support for committing the funds to do it.

It is also a problem overseas, just read something about a ancient galley found in shallow water close to shore. It is in great shape but no money to recover.

GRIZZ
 
There are a number of challenges facing any attempts at Tecumseh, I understand, including fairly difficult diving conditions. There is also the consideration that the site is a grave for 90+ individuals; that's not necessarily a stopper in and of itself but definitely tends to slam the brakes on.

The money's just not there at the moment; and considering the funding situation that Monitor is in, I'm not eager for them to start picking at Tecumseh right now.

I too would like for the Gov't to raise the Tecumseh. I have talked with one person who has been inside it. My bro-in- law, many years ago in the Explorer Scouts, went scuba diving around it. A Mobile restaurant owner was in a law suit many years ago about its ownership. It now is the property of the Smithsonian. I talked with the historian at Ft. Morgan about its the feasibility and he said he did not think it would ever be raised. I can't see all that much danger in diving around it.
The Coast Guard has placed a red buoy over the wreck. It doesn't seem to be but a hundred yards if that far out from the point at Ft. Morgan. The Museum of Mobile use to have on display a side of its armor with huge dent from the mine explosion.
I understand it is upside down. That maybe one of the problems. Since our Federal budget is now in the trillions, we can do a little more for historic preservation??
 
Since our Federal budget is now in the trillions, we can do a little more for historic preservation??

I certainly agree with that sentiment.

I'm dubious about anyone having been "inside" Tecumseh. It's a bad diving spot, poor visibility with strong tidal flows and surge.

Under law, ownership remains with the U.S. government, overseen by the Archaeology Branch of the Naval History and Heritage Command. They tend to be very "hands off" unless there's a compelling reason to disturb the site, as in the case of Georgia and Westfield, where the wrecks lay in an active shipping lane and were imminently threatened by dredging.
 
I may have to go smoke a cigarette after that.

CSS Georgia Armor.jpg
 
It's not explained in the video anyway. This is a screencap of railroad iron (i.e., T-rails) interleaved to serve as armor plate. This view is end-on. The flat surface on top or bottom would be exposed to enemy fire. That streaked, silvery surface is where a cutting tool went through it.
 
It's not explained in the video anyway. This is a screencap of railroad iron (i.e., T-rails) interleaved to serve as armor plate. This view is end-on. The flat surface on top or bottom would be exposed to enemy fire. That streaked, silvery surface is where a cutting tool went through it.

I'm curious as to why they sawed it rather than leave it alone? Thoughts?
 
Back
Top