Farragut in the Mississippi

[Carronade]

Farragut ran past the batteries at Port Hudson on March 14, 1863, though only his flagship Hartford and the gunboat Albatross got through. They remained in the river until Port Hudson fell in July, doing their best to interdict Confederate supplies and blockade the mouth of the Red River. I'm curious how they supplied themselves, particularly with fuel. No doubt they economized on steaming as much as they could consistent with their mission. I suppose they could have cut wood on shore, although it was less efficient than coal. Did they make contact with Grant and Porter after they moved south of Vicksburg? Anyway it seems like quite an adventure, sustaining themselves in hostile territory all that time. Thanks for any info.

The discussion about trans-Mississippi in the Mexico thread got me thinking about this. I only realized as I was writing that today is March 14!

 

[USS ALASKA]

I suppose they could have cut wood on shore, although it was less efficient than coal.

From reading about locomotives, to include posts by @DaveBrt , conversion was needed to switch from coal to wood burning. Was the same true with ship propulsion units or were they more tolerant of different fuel types?

Thanks,
USS ALASKA

 

[WJC]

Farragut ran past the batteries at Port Hudson on March 14, 1863, though only his flagship Hartford and the gunboat Albatross got through. They remained in the river until Port Hudson fell in July, doing their best to interdict Confederate supplies and blockade the mouth of the Red River. I'm curious how they supplied themselves, particularly with fuel. No doubt they economized on steaming as much as they could consistent with their mission. I suppose they could have cut wood on shore, although it was less efficient than coal. Did they make contact with Grant and Porter after they moved south of Vicksburg? Anyway it seems like quite an adventure, sustaining themselves in hostile territory all that time. Thanks for any info.

The discussion about trans-Mississippi in the Mexico thread got me thinking about this. I only realized as I was writing that today is March 14!

I don't believe I have ever seen a really detailed telling of this aspect Farragut's campaign. Were they able to find quality steam coal supplies in the vicinity? Did they have to bring it in overland from New Orleans or elsewhere? Were there existing coaling stations for servicing civilian craft along the river? This might make an interesting research paper or article.

 

[USS ALASKA]

I'm curious how they supplied themselves, particularly with fuel.

Were they able to find quality steam coal supplies in the vicinity? Did they have to bring it in overland from New Orleans or elsewhere?

Was much coal captured at NOLA?

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/southern-coal-supplies.129467/#post-1436562

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[WJC]

Was much coal captured at NOLA?

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/southern-coal-supplies.129467/#post-1436562

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

Thanks for your response.
A good question for which I have no answer. I do know that in the antebellum period New Orleans had major facilities for coaling ships.
JohnDLittlefield's comment on the page you reference may point to the answer:

William Still says in Confederate Shipbuilding that "Although the South, with the exception of the trans-Mississippi West, had an abundant supply of coal in its mines, naval squadrons and facilities were continually short of this fuel"; that the problem was not abundance of coal supplies, but transportation within the Confederacy (pp.56-7). As for anthracite coal, he makes no distinction, so it's unclear were this was coming from.​

 

[DaveBrt]

From reading about locomotives, to include posts by @DaveBrt , conversion was needed to switch from coal to wood burning. Was the same true with ship propulsion units or were they more tolerant of different fuel types?

Thanks,
USS ALASKA

The modification was from wood to coal because of the much hotter fire.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Farragut's vessels needed coal.

There was an amusing incident (gleefully reported by good old Ben Butler, of course) that some time before New Orleans, Farragut's fleet was short on coal. It just so happened that Butler had had his troop transports ballasted with coal, rather than rock or sand, as part of a speculation (he thought it likely that coal would increase in price during the expedition, so if he sold the coal at the end of it, it could help defray the cost of the expedition to the government-- or so he claimed as his motivation. As this was Butler, it's fair to say that that motivation is at least open to scrutiny...) and offered to supply Farragut's vessels from this unorthodox source.

I do know that there was at least one time when Porter's fleet upstream of Vicksburg floated some coal barges down to Farragut, but that was obviously not suited to a regular source of supply. Robert Browning's book on the West Gulf Blockading Squadron, Lincoln's Trident, does say that supplying steamers with coal at that end of the long Union coastal supply line was always a challenge throughout the war.

 

[1stMS-Arty]

I believe Baton Rouge is where the fleet coaled before heading up river.

I think those are mounds of coal the men are working on in the foreground...

Caption: Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 1863. Note gunboats at dock. U.S. Navy screw steam gunboat USS Kineo and sloop of war, steamer, USS Hartford, to the right, March 1863. Stereograph image. Courtesy of the Library of Congress. (2015/06/12).

 

[1stMS-Arty]

There is also this photograph of the Essex taken probably at the same time which refers to caoling at Baton Rouge....(July of 1862 is probably not correct)

 

[1stMS-Arty]

on March 21, 1863 Grant sent a coal barge down which apparently successfully passed the Vicksburg batteries and reached Farragut....ORN vol 20 page 7

 

[Carronade]

Interesting...also interesting that they were able to exchange letters, both ways apparently.

"much larger than our necessities required", so as long as they could keep the barge safe, they would have a reserve of coal.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Interesting...also interesting that they were able to exchange letters, both ways apparently.

There was a semi-established overland route on the western bank opposite Vicksburg.

 

[1stMS-Arty]

There was a semi-established overland route on the western bank opposite Vicksburg.

True in fact Farragut sent his son by that route to be with Porter....

 

[1stMS-Arty]

Another view of coal heavers at Baton Rouge...

 

[georgew]

Was much coal captured at NOLA?

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/southern-coal-supplies.129467/#post-1436562

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

A large coal pile was secured at the "Quarentine" station above the forts. There were further coal piles at both Algiers and the New Orleans side. Apparently the tow boat companies had retained stocks of coal for their few remaining tow boats which were appropriated (both boats and coal) by Gen. Butler. There was also the depot of a major pre-war coal company with its own barges and a tug later taken by the RDS at the "Little Rebel". There was an interesting years long legal battle over this after the war with the tow boat companies or their successors seeking payment. In the court papers it was revealed that two of the companies had cut a deal with Butler in 1862 and were not part of the law suit. Just off the top of my head I seem to remember the amount of coal in dispute being about 70,000 barrels (6,475 tons). These numbers are believable as Senior Captain Montgomery of the RDS later wrote Jefferson Davis bitterly about Gen. Lovell cancelling his order for 30,000 barrels to be transported up-river to Memphis and Fort Pillow. I did some research on this topic a few years ago and apparently the western coal barrel held about 185 lbs of coal. There were several commercial "sizes" of coal with the smaller type packing the barrel more closely.

 

[NedBaldwin]

The barges floated down from Vicksburg helped for a time. But by June Commodore Palmer, the commander of the Hartford (Farragut himself had gone back down the river below Port Hudson), was complaining that he was practically immobilized for lack of coal.