"Hull Down"

The Navy's prize rules at the time required all vessels within signaling distance to share equally in the proceeds of the capture, whether they were actively engaged or not. So there was actually cash on the line, for commanders to show that their vessel was within that distance or, in some cases, to show that another Navy vessel was actually NOT within range.
Is there any information on the top prize winners, perhaps officers who retired wealthy? Under US law did the admirals not on the scene get their cut?
 
Is there any information on the top prize winners, perhaps officers who retired wealthy? Under US law did the admirals not on the scene get their cut?

From the blockade-running book:

After deductions for court costs and inventorying, appraising and auctioning the prize, half the proceeds was retained by the government and placed in a fund for disabled seamen, while the other half was divvied up between the officers and crew of the squadron that made the capture. The admiral commanding the regional squadron (e.g., the West Gulf Blockading Squadron) collected 5 percent of the total proceeds, the local commodore received 1 percent and the remaining 44 percent was split among the officers and men of the naval vessel(s) that had actually made the capture. In keeping with a U.S. law dating to 1800, the captain and officers aboard the capturing vessels claimed the lion’s share of the prize money, while the far more numerous enlisted sailors and Marines were left to divide a small part of the proceeds among themselves.

Estimates of the total value of prizes captured during the war range as high as $31 million. Though an individual seaman’s share might be small, prize money remained an important inducement to service and helped make some officers wealthy. By collecting 5 percent of the value of each prize taken by their regional squadrons, some senior admirals were believed to have pocketed small fortunes during their appointments. Samuel Phillips Lee, who commanded the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron off Wilmington, North Carolina, reportedly referred to his post as the “prize money command.” Lee was so protective of his perquisite that he hired his own attorney, acting on commission, to represent him in prize cases. The lawyer did his job well, helping Lee to collect $109,689.99 in prize money during his two years’ tenure in command, the highest of any Union officer. Perhaps the most avaricious of Union naval commanders—at least by reputation—was David Dixon Porter, commander of the navy’s Mississippi River Squadron. Though his river gunboats were operating hundreds of miles from the sea, in 1863 Porter issued an order to his squadron extending the conventional navy prize rules to the seizure of any property belonging to the enemy. Landing parties from the Mississippi Squadron’s gunboats scoured plantations, groves and barns miles from the river, rounding up cotton to be shipped north and adjudicated at Cairo, Illinois. Porter’s actions interfered with the work of the Treasury Department and civilian merchants licensed by the Lincoln administration to trade in cotton, so the Navy Department eventually put an end to Porter’s shady game—but not before the admiral’s 5 percent share had netted him thousands of dollars and his officers and men many tens of thousands more.

There were not a great many lucrative prizes to be found off the Texas coast, but over the course of the war, the Union navy snatched up prizes on a regular basis. Most of these were small sailing vessels carrying a few tons of assorted cargo inbound or fifty to seventy-five bales of cotton outbound. Typical of these was the British schooner Fanny, captured off the mouth of the Brazos River by USS Owasco in April 1864. Fanny was sent with a prize crew to New Orleans, where the schooner and her cargo of assorted goods were condemned by the court and auctioned for a total of $10,317.61. After deductions for court expenses, payment of half the remaining proceeds to the disabled seamen’s fund and the senior officers’ cut, some $4,044.46 remained to be divided among Owasco’s officers and crew. Under the prize regulations, the blockader’s commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander E.W. Henry, would have collected a share of just over $600, while the ordinary seamen and Marines aboard Owasco would have eventually pocketed about $10 each.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this explanation, Andy. When my parents and my oldest sister were alive, I had lots of occasions to visit wet Texas. Wet Texas never disappointed me!

Previously, when I read the term "hull down" I envisioned the foremost part of a surface ship buried in a massive swell. I appreciate your correction of my perception!
 
Great photo and post. I spent some time in my Civil Service days at the USMC P7's Amphib base there and would see all them lined up. Sometime I would see them and the anchor line would be tight when the wind came from the south nd it looked like they were riding on a string.
 
For ground troops hull down is similar, where you use the military crest as a breastworks and such.

That was my first thought, and wondered why Andy would be talking about tanks, seeing he is a navy kinda guy. Then I clicked open the thread. I should have known better!:smile: I never imagined those freighters were so huge!
 
I never imagined those freighters were so huge!

They are enormous compared to the ships we usually talk about 'round here. I'm always amazed at the size of the cruise ships, even though they're been a regular part of the landscape here for years. Carnival Freedom, that sailed out of here Saturday, is 110,000 gross registered tons, is more than twice the size of the infamous Titanic of a century or so ago (46,300 GRT), and more than five times the size of the largest ship of the Civil War era, Great Eastern (18,900 GRT).

Of course, neither Titanic nor Great Eastern had a Sgt. Pepper tribute band, so that's something.
 
Last edited:
That was my first thought, and wondered why Andy would be talking about tanks, seeing he is a navy kinda guy. Then I clicked open the thread. I should have known better!:smile: I never imagined those freighters were so huge!
The ground troops version has the freind of 'hull down', called "reverse sloap'. Wellington may have been the master of the premise. His effective use of it in campaigns prior to waterloo influenced the battle of quatre bras (just before waterloo). Wellingtons tactical disposition at waterloo was reverse sloap. This is usefull when the military crest would expose one troops to undue fire. See Napoleon and his artillery.
 
If you read many reports from the CW era or before, or naval fiction (Patrick O'Brien et al.), you've probably come across the term "hull down," referring to a ship sighted at a long distance. If the weather is clear, you can see well beyond the horizon, and other vessels beyond that point will have their lower parts hidden behind the curve of the earth; sometimes only the sails would be visible. This is known as being "hull down" to the observer.

I took this photo today, that illustrates the phenomenon. These are ships anchored in the Gulf of Mexico off the beach at Galveston, probably waiting for a space to open in Houston, Texas City, or Baytown.

In this case, all three ships are beyond the horizon as viewed from my vantage point. At my elevation, about 17 feet, the horizon is about 4.43 nautical miles (5.1 statute miles) distant. But you can see plainly how only the upper part of the farthest ship, the Tanja Jacob, is visible. Tanja Jacob is "hull down."

View attachment 105915

Andy,

Squid Knowledge, absolutely worthless to us 'ground pounders' in the army.

But the term 'hull down' also applies to a tank, which drives itself behind a small rise or into a man-made depression, that makes a tank a smaller target by hiding it's hull and showing only it's turret and main gun.

Now that's worth knowing! :wink:
 
They are enormous compared to the ships we usually talk about 'round here. I'm always amazed at the size of the cruise ships, even though they're been a regular part of the landscape here for years. Carnival Freedom, that sailed out of here Saturday, is 110,000 gross registered tons, is more than twice the size of the infamous Titanic of a century or so ago (46,300 GRT), and more than five times the size of the largest ship of the Civil War era, Great Eastern (18,900 GRT).

Of course, neither Titanic nor Great Eastern had a Sgt. Pepper tribute band, either.
My son is a Titanic fanatic, we have a four and a half foot model of her on the mantelpiece in out lounge. We also have a smaller scale model of her and a model of Queen Mary II to the same scale. Put side by side, the very top of Titanic's funnels are just below QMII's upper deck !
 
When you were in a sailing vessel that was being pursued during the night by a windward enemy, especially to the eastward of you, you always took in your topgallant and royal sails just before dawn, though your pursuers might be a great way off. If you were hull-down, your sails would still be visible above the horizen. They would be the first to catch the dawn sunlight, even though your deck remained dark, and the flash of reflected light off the white upper sails, set against the dark background, would signal your presence even at a great distance.
 
My son is a Titanic fanatic, we have a four and a half foot model of her on the mantelpiece in out lounge. We also have a smaller scale model of her and a model of Queen Mary II to the same scale. Put side by side, the very top of Titanic's funnels are just below QMII's upper deck !

It's not QMII, but zoom in to get a look at the size of the ants people on board.

24510975711_22434e2425_o.jpg
 
Back
Top