CSS LOUISIANA - A NEW PERSPECTIVE

[rebelatsea]

Following on from earlier threads, I decided to attempt a thorough re examination of the known information on this vessel and put it into a coherent sequence of events to tell her story.
I would like to thank Bil Ragan for his copious research notes, and Cdr C.B. Robbins USN (Rtd) for ensuring that my narrative is coherent, readable and correctly punctuated !

CSS LOUISIANA – A new perspective

John W Wallis. July 2015

The following paper is based on the contract and specification plus surviving contemporary accounts as far as possible, and attempts to reconcile conflicting and often contrary reports. All opinions expressed are the author's, unless otherwise stated.

CSS Louisiana began life as a proposal and model by E.C.Murray, an accomplished New Orleans shipbuilder. Secretary Mallory approved and gave the contract to Murray to arrange construction. Murray contracted to have one of John Hughes's yards at Jefferson City New Orleans as his construction site .

Murray's plans and proposal have not survived so what follows is a reconstruction from the available contemporary materiel

Type: Ironclad Frigate. Paddles: 2 x 27ft diameter tandem centre line. Crew : 300+

Dimensions: 264ft(OA) x 62ft(EX) x 6ft (D). 1,403 tons speed 16 nots ( proposed) , 8.5 knots calculated.

Guns: 2 -11" sb, 16 -9"sb, 4-32pdrs sb, also a cast iron ram which it appears was not designed.

Armour: Hull and casemate to 2ft below waterline, 3.5" interlocking T rail, fore and aft decks 2" plate. Timber backing for the casemate was 28" angled at 38 degrees.

Note that there is no mention of steering engines in the original proposal, and I have not incorporated them in the reconstruction below.

The Contract was let 18th September 1861, to be completed by 25 January 1862

John L Porter assigned Acting Naval Constructor Joseph Pierce to produce the specification and working plans and supervise construction, at the same time as he was overseeing the construction of CSS Mississippi at the new yard on the neighbouring plot of land.

Again the drawings have not survived, but Pierce is believed to have produced two plans;

In this plan drawn to reflect the terms of the contract, we see that the wheels are protected by an upward extension of the casemate ,now angled at 45 degrees in order to obtain the necessary width at the top. The casemate roof is recessed 4ft. This roof comprised a series of 12" x 12" beams with 4ft spacing around a centre grill work . The beams allowed the crew to hang their hammocks and supported platforms reached by ladders from the deck below. The platforms were surrounded by stanchions and ropework 2.5ft high. A wheelhouse was placed immediately forward of the funnel..

The casemate itself has been shortened to reduce weight, and now encloses only 16 guns, protected by hinged "half and half"covers frigate style. The two hatches, often quoted as closed gunports, are more probably connected with access to the paddlewheel cranks, because of their position. There were two be two anchors and capstans on the foredeck, with an anchor handling davit, one anchor and capstan aft. The steering propellors were 4ft in diameter, but there is no mention of engines to drive them in the contract..

In order to reduce weight still further this plan was modified:

The paddle wheel protection has been removed, and the wheels boxed, whether these were intended to be plated is unknown. The round shape is a guess, the casing could just as easily have been a rectangular box especially if plating was intended. The roof is now flush with the top of the casemate, and a surrounding 4ft high bulwark of 2" plate installed. A small wheelhouse aft of the wheels has been added.

We do not know what Pierce's intended battery was to be, but taking his CSS Mississippi as an example, 4 – heavy rifled guns and 12 smoothbores would see most likely.

Possibly initially ,locally produced rifled and banded 42 and 32pdrs may have been considered. In the event her battery was made up with whatever weapons were available, which almost certainly added to the confusion in her inexperienced gun crews drawn from army units with no experience of naval guns.

With construction under way, ,Joseph Pierce concentrated all his attention on CSS Mississippi, in the yard alongside, for which he was also responsible.

He has been criticized for this, in my view unfairly. E.C.Murray, and John Hughe's shipbuilders were experienced whereas the Tift brothers were not, and thus would need more time and attention spent on their vessel.

With many delays to both vessels due to labour disputes, army interference with the workforce and difficulties obtaining materiels, Louisiana, laid down on 15/10/1861, was not launched until 6/02/1862.

Instead of purpose built machinery, she was given the boilers and engines from the river steamer Ingomar, and still no provision had been made to power the additional steering screws.

Yet more changes and omissions are apparent in her appearance at launch. The forward 27ft wheel had been changed to one of 20ft diameter, she was launched with no armour on the casemate, or below water., and had not been fitted with steering engines ,capstans, or wheelhouses and paddle wheel boxes, and floated 2ft deeper at 8ft than had been intended.

John Roy, who had experimented on his own centrewheel vessel and designed his centre wheel gunboats , was an observer at her launch had some comments to make, including that the aft wheel well was too low, and will not allow easy passage of water. This suggests that he had been or was on board at launch.

Nevertheless she was reported as being very buoyant and rode the water easily.

When her armour was being added, her appointed Captain, Charles McIntosh, insisted that the gunports be made oval, adding another 5 day delay. She never received her armour belt, nor apparently the forward and after conning towers.

McIntosh evidently was the wrong choice for this command as his brother officers commented that he didn't believe in anything new, let alone ironclads, yet here he was expected to take charge of a brand new untried and untested ironclad, prepare it for action and engage the enemy. In fairness it probably didn't help that J.KMitchell had been appointed Flag Officer and chose to take Louisiana as his flagship.

Two 500 hp tugboat engines were added to power the steering engines, which now drove 7ft screws, but no extra boilers were provided. In my view a serious mistake, as there was not enough steam generating capacity in the six boilers provided to power the main engines let alone the auxiliary steering engines

Consequently when tried, she could keep up with the current going downstream, but could not steer or breast the current upstream. Chief Engineer Youngblood said that the forward wheel merely pushed water into the blades of the aft wheel, and both caused eddies around the rudders rendering them ineffective,

It did not help that the wheel well had not been properly caulked consequently flooding the gun deck and after magazine.

Her engineers made valiant efforts to make the machinery effective once she was moored at the forts, which apparently included making changers to the wheels.

The artist William Waud saw and sketched her at the forts. the plan below is an attenpt to reconcile what he saw with descriptions by officers on board.

When taken down to the forts, her battery,, 3 -9"sb ,4 -8" sb 1-7"mlr and 7 -32pdr mlr. was on board but not mounted, one 7" mlr had been left behind on the quay. Attempts were made to get these mounted, but some were put on wrong carriages and others not completed when she went into action. With armour etc on board her freeboard was now about 6" and a low bulwark was installed on the fore deck and aft decks. The fore hatch had no coaming.

Can we trust Waud's sketch?

I believe we can as he depicts the ship with only two guns aft, and we know that one gun was left behind on the quay when the ship left for the forts.

Readers will note that Waud sketched two parallel paddleboxes aft, suggesting that the aft 27ft wheel had been split, possibly the fore 20ft wheel had been un shipped, but there is no written evidence for either of these.

Also of note is that Waud did not depict the 4ft plate bulwark ,but instead shows a low stanchion and rope barrier. He also shows what appears to be a casing around the funnel, but no conning towers Cdr McIntosh was allegedly wounded whilst behind the plate barrier, A sketch by J.KMitchell shows some form of screen at the fore end of the casemate, (as well as the plate bulwark) and it may be that it was this behind which McIntosh was standing.when wounded.

Mitchell's sketch also shows the low bulwark on the aft deck, which Waud omits.

The plan above is therefore something of a compromise between Waud and Mitchell.

Commissioned on 24/4/1862, and employed as a stationary floating battery, her fore and starboard batteries engaged in close action on the night of 25/4/1862 but were unable to depress far enough to inflict serious damage. Receiving in return heavy fire at point blank range to which her casemate was impervious.

She was burned and sunk on the 28/4/1862 after the forts had surrendered, her engineers being unable to get her machinery into a condition to move her.

SOURCES.

Official Records (Navies) – Government Printing Office.

Iron Afloat – William Still.

History of the Confederate States Navy - Thomas Scharf.

Bil Ragan – notes on the history and construction of CSS Louisiana culled from a number of original and contemporary sources.

 

[Dilandu]

Great analysis!

Hm, so, probably the version with two parallel wheels ALSO existed? Quite interesting; i always assumed that the "parallel wheel Louisiana" was a mistake.

 

[Dilandu]

P.S. Always wondered - what if Union was able to capture the "Louisiana" and "Mississippi"? Would they found some use for latter?

 

[rebelatsea]

P.S. Always wondered - what if Union was able to capture the "Louisiana" and "Mississippi"? Would they found some use for latter?

There is now written proof of the twin side wheels, merely Waud's sketch and one other contemporary published in ORNs.
Yes ,I do think the USN would have completed and commissioned CSS Mississippi, they would have to rename her as there was already a paddle frigate with that name.

 

[Dilandu]

Yes ,I do think the USN would have completed and commissioned CSS Mississippi, they would have to rename her as there was already a paddle frigate with that name.

Yeah, the "Mississippi" was good enough to complete her for the Union. But the "Louisiana"... the only use that the Union probably could have for her, is the role of floating battery in New Orlean.

 

[Bil R]

Hello John,

A superb analysis and much appreciated. What I find fascinating about this vessel and others is how the design changed from concept to construction. In some cases the original designer could not recognize or foresee how the final product would appear (ex. Mississippi). In other cases we see how a common structure (casemate) evolved from standard bulwarks by reducing the ends, enclosing them and placing on a roof (ex. Arkansas). We tend to think the ship 'as built' was exactly what the designer imagined but that is rarely the case. As a contemporary example it is reported that over 80 different hull and deck configurations were considered before the new Ford class carriers were laid down.

I had not considered that the closed ports could simply be access ports to the cranks and shafts. But that makes sense and if they are discovered to be directly opposite from each shaft then that would allow us to determine the wheel diameters since we know they were placed into a fixed length wheel well. There are a couple of other details to clarify. I don't know if it was Hughes who offered the property in Jefferson. All of the riverfront property in Algiers was occupied by antebellum dry dock companies and smaller boat yards. In that desired area rent would have been high even if space could have been found. On the other hand a yard in Jefferson would have had several advantages. Being on the east bank supplies would not have to be transferred across the Mississippi River. Most of the lumber used came from southern Louisiana and Mississippi and was shipped across Lake Pontchartrain. From there it was transported using either the Jefferson and Lake Pontchartrain RR or the 17th St. Canal. I have not yet located the actual yard but I believe it was near the J & LP terminus. This raises another question. With the yard being well upriver of New Orleans, again, why wasn't a better effort made to save the Mississippi?

Let me get back on topic. Another detail is that Murray's primary yard was in Paducah,KY. He had moved his operations there from Louisville in 1854-55 because both labor and lumber were less expensive. There were a couple of other yards in Paducah and the builders enjoyed a good reputation for quality work. As an aside it was at Paducah where the Eastport was rebuilt and refit in the fall of 1860. As you recall that '10 year old' boat was captured in excellent condition in 1862. Murray was well known among the steamboat men and shippers and had no difficulties establishing himself in New Orleans once the Louisiana contract was made.

As to Dilandu's comments I believe both vessels would have been used by the USN had they been captured. The Mississippi would have been used for offensive operations until her hull was condemned (green wood used, 2-4 years) and the Louisiana probably would have been a receiving or guard ship. I don't see her being rebuilt as an active unit.

Completely off topic, besides naval, maritime and aviation history I have a bit of an interest in railroad history. Recently I acquired a 1st edition copy of Ehron's 'British Steam Locomotives 1825-1925'. All I can say is 'My God, what an extraordinary reference book'. This is one of those reference books that emerges every generation or so. I wish there was a similar quality reference book on early American steam but I have yet to find one. If you have any suggestions let me know.

All the best,
Bil

 

[georgew]

Hello John,

A superb analysis and much appreciated. What I find fascinating about this vessel and others is how the design changed from concept to construction. In some cases the original designer could not recognize or foresee how the final product would appear (ex. Mississippi). In other cases we see how a common structure (casemate) evolved from standard bulwarks by reducing the ends, enclosing them and placing on a roof (ex. Arkansas). We tend to think the ship 'as built' was exactly what the designer imagined but that is rarely the case. As a contemporary example it is reported that over 80 different hull and deck configurations were considered before the new Ford class carriers were laid down.

I had not considered that the closed ports could simply be access ports to the cranks and shafts. But that makes sense and if they are discovered to be directly opposite from each shaft then that would allow us to determine the wheel diameters since we know they were placed into a fixed length wheel well. There are a couple of other details to clarify. I don't know if it was Hughes who offered the property in Jefferson. All of the riverfront property in Algiers was occupied by antebellum dry dock companies and smaller boat yards. In that desired area rent would have been high even if space could have been found. On the other hand a yard in Jefferson would have had several advantages. Being on the east bank supplies would not have to be transferred across the Mississippi River. Most of the lumber used came from southern Louisiana and Mississippi and was shipped across Lake Pontchartrain. From there it was transported using either the Jefferson and Lake Pontchartrain RR or the 17th St. Canal. I have not yet located the actual yard but I believe it was near the J & LP terminus. This raises another question. With the yard being well upriver of New Orleans, again, why wasn't a better effort made to save the Mississippi?

Let me get back on topic. Another detail is that Murray's primary yard was in Paducah,KY. He had moved his operations there from Louisville in 1854-55 because both labor and lumber were less expensive. There were a couple of other yards in Paducah and the builders enjoyed a good reputation for quality work. As an aside it was at Paducah where the Eastport was rebuilt and refit in the fall of 1860. As you recall that '10 year old' boat was captured in excellent condition in 1862. Murray was well known among the steamboat men and shippers and had no difficulties establishing himself in New Orleans once the Louisiana contract was made.

As to Dilandu's comments I believe both vessels would have been used by the USN had they been captured. The Mississippi would have been used for offensive operations until her hull was condemned (green wood used, 2-4 years) and the Louisiana probably would have been a receiving or guard ship. I don't see her being rebuilt as an active unit.

Completely off topic, besides naval, maritime and aviation history I have a bit of an interest in railroad history. Recently I acquired a 1st edition copy of Ehron's 'British Steam Locomotives 1825-1925'. All I can say is 'My God, what an extraordinary reference book'. This is one of those reference books that emerges every generation or so. I wish there was a similar quality reference book on early American steam but I have yet to find one. If you have any suggestions let me know.

All the best,
Bil

The owner of the Jefferson property was Laurent Millandon. He was also on the New Orleans Committee for Public Safety. One of the NO towboats was named after him, later acquired for the River Defense Service as the ram General Sterling Price.

 

[georgew]

Hello John,

A superb analysis and much appreciated. What I find fascinating about this vessel and others is how the design changed from concept to construction. In some cases the original designer could not recognize or foresee how the final product would appear (ex. Mississippi). In other cases we see how a common structure (casemate) evolved from standard bulwarks by reducing the ends, enclosing them and placing on a roof (ex. Arkansas). We tend to think the ship 'as built' was exactly what the designer imagined but that is rarely the case. As a contemporary example it is reported that over 80 different hull and deck configurations were considered before the new Ford class carriers were laid down.

I had not considered that the closed ports could simply be access ports to the cranks and shafts. But that makes sense and if they are discovered to be directly opposite from each shaft then that would allow us to determine the wheel diameters since we know they were placed into a fixed length wheel well. There are a couple of other details to clarify. I don't know if it was Hughes who offered the property in Jefferson. All of the riverfront property in Algiers was occupied by antebellum dry dock companies and smaller boat yards. In that desired area rent would have been high even if space could have been found. On the other hand a yard in Jefferson would have had several advantages. Being on the east bank supplies would not have to be transferred across the Mississippi River. Most of the lumber used came from southern Louisiana and Mississippi and was shipped across Lake Pontchartrain. From there it was transported using either the Jefferson and Lake Pontchartrain RR or the 17th St. Canal. I have not yet located the actual yard but I believe it was near the J & LP terminus. This raises another question. With the yard being well upriver of New Orleans, again, why wasn't a better effort made to save the Mississippi?

Let me get back on topic. Another detail is that Murray's primary yard was in Paducah,KY. He had moved his operations there from Louisville in 1854-55 because both labor and lumber were less expensive. There were a couple of other yards in Paducah and the builders enjoyed a good reputation for quality work. As an aside it was at Paducah where the Eastport was rebuilt and refit in the fall of 1860. As you recall that '10 year old' boat was captured in excellent condition in 1862. Murray was well known among the steamboat men and shippers and had no difficulties establishing himself in New Orleans once the Louisiana contract was made.

As to Dilandu's comments I believe both vessels would have been used by the USN had they been captured. The Mississippi would have been used for offensive operations until her hull was condemned (green wood used, 2-4 years) and the Louisiana probably would have been a receiving or guard ship. I don't see her being rebuilt as an active unit.

Completely off topic, besides naval, maritime and aviation history I have a bit of an interest in railroad history. Recently I acquired a 1st edition copy of Ehron's 'British Steam Locomotives 1825-1925'. All I can say is 'My God, what an extraordinary reference book'. This is one of those reference books that emerges every generation or so. I wish there was a similar quality reference book on early American steam but I have yet to find one. If you have any suggestions let me know.

All the best,
Bil[/QUOTE
A major issue on western waters was that the Confederates faced an evolving threat. The vessels under conversion and construction were modified to meet new threats. Consider the progression of Union warships on the upper river from "timberclad" to "Pook Turtle semi-ironclads" to fully ironclad vessels. The south could not meet the Union threat in terms of numbers and thus tried to skip a generation of construction by going to armorclads. Arkansas is the best example of a western purpose built warship undergoing continuous modification during construction. The Louisiana design was a "misfire" in terms of propulsion. Mississippi was essentially a second generation ironclad, but even if her propulsion had been more complete, it would have been difficult to supply her ordnance within a reasonable time frame. I would argue that the most cost-effective way to have held off Union forces on the lower river would have been to use the floating batteries being converted from two of the Algiers dry-docks as fixed batteries commanding the bars at Head of Passes. There was virtually no chance of the Confederates meeting the Union Navy on the lower river gun for gun. The ironclads were a necessity to deal with the heavier Union sloops, but needed more time for completion. Batteries covering the two deeper passes supplemented by converted rams of the class done for the River Defense Service to handle smaller steamers attempting to run past the batteries would have been a better investment and more likely to buy time. The first floating battery would have been available in late 1861 to cover the South West Pass.

 

[rebelatsea]

Hello John,

A superb analysis and much appreciated. What I find fascinating about this vessel and others is how the design changed from concept to construction. In some cases the original designer could not recognize or foresee how the final product would appear (ex. Mississippi). In other cases we see how a common structure (casemate) evolved from standard bulwarks by reducing the ends, enclosing them and placing on a roof (ex. Arkansas). We tend to think the ship 'as built' was exactly what the designer imagined but that is rarely the case. As a contemporary example it is reported that over 80 different hull and deck configurations were considered before the new Ford class carriers were laid down.

I had not considered that the closed ports could simply be access ports to the cranks and shafts. But that makes sense and if they are discovered to be directly opposite from each shaft then that would allow us to determine the wheel diameters since we know they were placed into a fixed length wheel well. There are a couple of other details to clarify. I don't know if it was Hughes who offered the property in Jefferson. All of the riverfront property in Algiers was occupied by antebellum dry dock companies and smaller boat yards. In that desired area rent would have been high even if space could have been found. On the other hand a yard in Jefferson would have had several advantages. Being on the east bank supplies would not have to be transferred across the Mississippi River. Most of the lumber used came from southern Louisiana and Mississippi and was shipped across Lake Pontchartrain. From there it was transported using either the Jefferson and Lake Pontchartrain RR or the 17th St. Canal. I have not yet located the actual yard but I believe it was near the J & LP terminus. This raises another question. With the yard being well upriver of New Orleans, again, why wasn't a better effort made to save the Mississippi?

Let me get back on topic. Another detail is that Murray's primary yard was in Paducah,KY. He had moved his operations there from Louisville in 1854-55 because both labor and lumber were less expensive. There were a couple of other yards in Paducah and the builders enjoyed a good reputation for quality work. As an aside it was at Paducah where the Eastport was rebuilt and refit in the fall of 1860. As you recall that '10 year old' boat was captured in excellent condition in 1862. Murray was well known among the steamboat men and shippers and had no difficulties establishing himself in New Orleans once the Louisiana contract was made.

As to Dilandu's comments I believe both vessels would have been used by the USN had they been captured. The Mississippi would have been used for offensive operations until her hull was condemned (green wood used, 2-4 years) and the Louisiana probably would have been a receiving or guard ship. I don't see her being rebuilt as an active unit.

Completely off topic, besides naval, maritime and aviation history I have a bit of an interest in railroad history. Recently I acquired a 1st edition copy of Ehron's 'British Steam Locomotives 1825-1925'. All I can say is 'My God, what an extraordinary reference book'. This is one of those reference books that emerges every generation or so. I wish there was a similar quality reference book on early American steam but I have yet to find one. If you have any suggestions let me know.

All the best,
Bil

Thank you for your kind comments Bil , they are much appreciated. there are still many questions, but I don'r suppose we will ever know the answers now.
I cannot see how Loiusiana could ever be anything other than a floating battery or other ancilliary ship.
I would hope that Mississippi would have a longer life by judicious refitting !
Charlie Robbins is now encouraging me to write a similar paper on the Mississippi !

the point about the designers intentions not being reflected ,at least in detail in reallity, is well made. I keep telling people that the original drawings and builders models they see in museums have to be modified by in service descriptions and where possible, photographs. I can well believe the carriers design history ,and I'm willing to bet that the final configuration shows many differences to the accepted build plan.
Dave Brt may correct me but I don't think a similar volume to Ehron's has ever been compiled for American Locomotives.
I have A history of the American Locomotive, It's development 1830 -1880 by John H White.
Dover Publications, Inc. New York, published by the John Hopkins Press. ISBN No: 0-486-23818-0. This basically covers the American 4-4-0, but nothing before, like "the coffee pot or Grasshopper" engines.

Kind regards, John.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

They did make an effort to save Mississippi but they apparently couldn't round up enough towing power to get her up the river. (In retrospect, I'm not sure where they could have taken her. She was too big to hide up the Yazoo like Arkansas...)

 

[Dilandu]

I cannot see how Loiusiana could ever be anything other than a floating battery or other ancilliary ship.

Hm... May be cut her casemate out (exept the cover around the wheelhouse) and put a turret or two on her, instead?

 

[georgew]

They did make an effort to save Mississippi but they apparently couldn't round up enough towing power to get her up the river. (In retrospect, I'm not sure where they could have taken her. She was too big to hide up the Yazoo like Arkansas...)

It wasn't just a matter of towing her upstream, much of her armor was stacked up on the riverside. It was pre-drilled, but would have needed fasteners and manpower to load barges or vessels to carry it. If they had managed to tow her to Vicksburg, she would have been vulnerable at her moorings uncompleted. There is also the question of the availability of mechanics and workmen to finish her. Ordnance might have been a big problem - look at the mess involved in trying to arm the Louisiana. Best case, she would be towed to Vicksburg, ironed on her port side (bow upstream) counter weighted on starboard until more iron arrived and used as an ironed battery until completed. Probably another Arkansas situation with detailed artillerymen for gun crews. In modern terms, she would have probably become a "threat magnet", drawing Farragut upriver in major force to finish her off.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I hadn't thought about the 'threat magnet' aspect, but you're quite right. Part of the reason Arkansas was able to achieve surprise is that it took some time for the Union to take the rumors of her completion seriously, and by then Brown had managed to whang her into something approaching fighting trim. With the larger and more complex Mississippi in a much more exposed position, the Confederates would have faced a considerable dilemma.

 

[rebelatsea]

There just wasn't enough time manpower or towing power to move such a big ship with all it's equipment upstream, assuming they could have moved her to Vicksbug, they would have to find a suitable deep (20ft) water berth for her with enough space ashore for the materiels they brought up, assuming space could be there for the workers and crew - wouldn't have thought they could have lived aboard her while she was being completed.

 

[vikingbear]

Hi John and fellow history nuts,
Well John, see your designs are as interesting and impressive as ever. Have to keep this short as the Dr wait to wait 3 more weeks to get new eye glasses ad am still seeing double, but not as bad as before. So hopefully will be able to visit again, and pick on Mark..............

GRIZZ