Hello John,
It's been a busy week as usual. Let me see if I can clarify a few details, or add more confusion. First, Mallory was not always precise in his quarterly reports and tended to color his comments with optimism. To give you an example he reported on more than one occasion that the Tifts had started the construction of the two smaller ironclads when they actually had not. Although those ironclads were authorized by Mallory in December the Tifts never laid them down. They did lay the foundation for the ways and prepared them; they did obtain the machinery sets; and they did gather materials to 'start' actual construction, but it was never done. They spent all of their final efforts trying to complete the Mississippi.
When the Carondelets were launched at Bayou St. John, and the Morgans launched in Mobile (January-February 1862), Mallory wished to order and construct follow-on gunboats. The ones in Mobile were to be enlarged and improved Morgans, and I assume the ones for 'lake' service were to be improved Carondelets. Then events took a turn in a different direction and this is where the confusion begins. Mallory had an extensive wooden gunboat program well under way and some ironclad projects underway. There were numerous proposals for ironclads and builders could expect to make a substantial profit on their construction. This I believe, motivated Porter & Watson to independently propose their project to the state of Mississippi. Shortly thereafter the Virginia made her successful debut at Hampton Roads and this changed everything. Overnight Mallory changed his plans and wished to focus only on ironclads. He went before the Confederate Congress and asked for funds to build at least 50 ironclads, and as one commentator stated, 'He might as well have asked for the moon'.
The result of this event was that wooden gunboats underway would be allowed to finish. Future contracts would be prioritized to ironclad construction. A year later Mallory realized the usefulness of wooden gunboats for regional defense and authorized what I refer to as the 'third generation' of wooden gunboats of which the Pee Dee was among the first. When the four sets of oscillating engines were made available in New Orleans I believe the P & W 'Lake gunboat' contract was modified to become a pair of screw propelled, diamond hull, ironclads. By this time, the state of Mississippi had already declined the P & W proposal but P & W had already prepared plans. I believe they returned to New Orleans, modified the plans, and prepared construction on Bayou St. John for the now 'Lake ironclads'. When New Orleans fell they left for Mobile and used these plans for the Tombigbee ironclads. Although never finished they were considered very well built, and high quality, strong hulls upon arrival in Mobile.
Meanwhile in Mobile, Henry Bassett had his own plans for an 'ironclad floating battery'. Mallory was pleased with his work on the Morgan and wanted him to start construction of the 'improved Morgans'. Bassett was able to use the success of the Virginia and his own plans, to convince Mallory to contract for a pair of ironclads instead. These became the Tuscaloosa and Huntsville. They were never described as ironclad gunboats, but always as ironclad batteries. The contract price that Bassett negotiated was also substantially higher than usual suggesting the additional expense of the armor and perhaps much more robust construction.
The profile and plan drawing above was done by me over a decade ago as a simple schematic plan to determine a possible layout for the Tombigbees. Hence, the simple lines and rectangular gunports. The original plan in the CWNM is missing the bow half or right hand side of the plans. That part of the drawing is conjecture by me and in my original schematic I had included as alternates a straight stem with ram, the raked stem with ram, and an Albemarle style stem, all of which were plausible. When first seeing the plan I was immediately struck by the sheer of the hull, something not seen in any other CSN designs. This would have made them a bit more seaworthy and drier in coastal waters suggesting possible off shore use. For years the CWNM considered 'Gunboat No.1' plan to be the Tuscaloosa, however, the limited survey done in 1985 shows the Tuscaloosas with clearly angular lines, no apparent sheer and straight hull sides. To me, the sheer hull, twin screws and four HP boilers suggest this is a drawing of the Tombigbees.
Regarding costs at that time, the quoted $110k may have been appropriate for a completely equipped, (armor, machinery, armament) 196' triple screw ironclad. The cost of $25k would have covered a smaller wooden hull and casemate, but not armor or armament. A separate $25k would have covered machinery alone. Such are my thoughts at this time.
All the best,
Bil
Forum Host
Bringing the