Iron for CSS Chattahoochee

[DaveBrt]

From Governor Milton (Fla) paper at the Florida Historical Society:

C. S. S. "Chattahoochee"
Chattahoochee, Fla. May 4th 1863

His Excellency, John Milton
Governor of Florida

Sir,
The object of this note is to solicit the cooperation of your Excellency concerning a matter which I think of some importance in connection with the defence of the coast of Florida. I will state my proposition as briefly as possible. The Confederate Government is now constructing at Columbus, Ga. a very formidable vessel to be iron-clad and furnished with a powerful battery of five Brooke guns. The wood work and engines will be complete by the end of September, the vessel will be launched about the 1st of July. The intention is that this vessel shall operate against the Enemys blockading force at Apalachicola and along the coast in both directions from that place. As I have already remarked the hull and machinery will be complete and ready for service by the latter part of September. Yet one of the most important parts of her will not be commenced unless the material can be obtained, to wit: the iron plating. As you are probably aware great difficulty is experienced by the Government in obtaining the iron necessary to plate the ironclads, now far advanced at places where it is deemed they will be first required. In fact the Columbus boat will have to take her turn after three new ones at Charleston, two at Savannah, three in the Alabama and three in the Tombigbee river have been served. Some of these, or rather the most of them, are very large vessels, and I therefore conjecture that at least nine months from now will be consumed before any iron will come to Columbus. Three months will then be necessary for the operation of plating, which would bring us up to May '64 when the river would be down and no operations could be begun until fall. I have a plan by which I think many of these difficulties may be obviated. Railroad bars are as good as plates for the mail of steamers or batteries, at least I found them so in five encounters with the enemy on the Mississippi last year; the road leading from Cedar Keys towards Fernandina in East Florida {Florida RR}, is now virtually in the hands of the enemy and the iron upon it of no use consequently to the State of Florida or its Stockholders. Now why cant a sufficient quantity of iron be obtained from that abandoned road to plate the new vessel, say about 5 miles will be required for the purpose. By using it no one can be damaged and much good will accrue, especially to the State of Florida. Apalachicola will be re-occupied at once by our forces, and its refugee citizens; the blockaders can be driven off at stated times in order to allow vessels to run the blockade with ease and certainty, and thus that place instead of being deserted by its citizens, and held in a manner by the enemy, will become again a place of commerce and trade. Negro stealing can be put an end to, as the forces now in this river can be distributed in suitable localities for the protection of the coast.
I am sure that you will agree with me that no imaginary interest of any rail-road company should be allowed to interfere with the public defence or the public weal.
I have stated a part of the facts in connection with this important matter and you will at once see better than I that nothing should be left untried to effect an object of so great import.
I confess that I am at sea as to the means of peaceably getting possession of the much prized article, and therefore apply to you. The Government will pay liberally and take it off the ground.
Will you do me the favor to reply at your earliest convenience.
I have the honor to be
Very Respectfully
Your Obt Servt
Geo W. Gift
Lt. C. S. N.

 

[Bil R]

Hello Dave,

As usual and excellent and informative post. There are several details of importance about this letter. First, Gift is aboard the Chattahoochee and seeking the Governor's assistance in obtaining iron for the future CSS Jackson. At that time she was being built as a shallow draft, stern-wheel ironclad as suggested by her '5' gun planned armament. It was intended to have one bow gun and four broadside guns. She would later be delayed in construction and rebuilt as a larger, twin screw vessel. The other details of interest is that Gift suggests it would take about 5 miles worth of RR iron to cover the Jackson and that the ironing work would take about 3 months to complete. If we know the weight of the iron bar of that railroad we can calculate the expected weight of iron for the Jackson's original design (and hence that of Porter's stern-wheel ironclads intended for the Cumberland & TN rivers). It is rare to see actual work time estimates for specific tasks in Confederate ironclad construction. I also appreciate Gift's awareness of other ironclad construction projects and the priority given to them. Thanks for posting.

All the best,
Bil

 

[rebelatsea]

Bi, All the accepted histories say that The ship constructing at Columbus would have been a "Muscogee" type centre wheeler. The Porter plan shows the design for 8 guns. Are we looking at yet another piece of "received wisdom", was it indeed a reduced Muscogee,

or was it to the same base design as Missouri, which would make more sense in terms of the number of guns? Here is that plan and the Missouri as completed with only three guns and the aft most gunports blocked.

 

[rebelatsea]

There wasn't meant to be two centre wheel gunboat plans ! Sorry.

 

[bradford011]

Nice drawings of some lesser-known ironclads!

I find it interesting that the Governor of Florida is being asked for rail for an ironclad being built in Georgia. The iron situation must have been even more critical than usual...

 

[DaveBrt]

Hello Dave,

As usual and excellent and informative post. There are several details of importance about this letter. First, Gift is aboard the Chattahoochee and seeking the Governor's assistance in obtaining iron for the future CSS Jackson. At that time she was being built as a shallow draft, stern-wheel ironclad as suggested by her '5' gun planned armament. It was intended to have one bow gun and four broadside guns. She would later be delayed in construction and rebuilt as a larger, twin screw vessel. The other details of interest is that Gift suggests it would take about 5 miles worth of RR iron to cover the Jackson and that the ironing work would take about 3 months to complete. If we know the weight of the iron bar of that railroad we can calculate the expected weight of iron for the Jackson's original design (and hence that of Porter's stern-wheel ironclads intended for the Cumberland & TN rivers). It is rare to see actual work time estimates for specific tasks in Confederate ironclad construction. I also appreciate Gift's awareness of other ironclad construction projects and the priority given to them. Thanks for posting.

All the best,
Bil

Iron for the RRs in question was 58 or 60# per yard. This works out to 525 tons (2000#).

 

[DaveBrt]

Nice drawings of some lesser-known ironclads!

I find it interesting that the Governor of Florida is being asked for rail for an ironclad being built in Georgia. The iron situation must have been even more critical than usual...

The main argument for using the Florida iron was that the section of rail he wanted was between the lines -- Feds. in Jacksonville and Rebs in Baldwin. If the ironclad could be built and was successful in getting in blockade runners, there would be some chance that Florida would receive some of the supplies received (3 pipe dreams in one sentence).

 

[DaveBrt]

Governor Milton jumped on this letter to further his own plans. He sent the letter, with a long one of his own, to Davis.

Milton wanted to extend the Pensacola & Georgia RR west from Quincy (25 miles west of Tallahassee) to the Chattahoochee River where river boats could be used to connect Florida with the rest of the Confederacy through Columbus and its railroad. The extension of the road was part of the long term plan of the Pensacola & Georgia RR, so the Governor was helping a commercial RR to complete its line, as well as providing a secure connection to the rest of the CS. In 1862, the grading was finished, ties in place and tresling completed. (Note the letter is 1863)

Milton tried to piggyback on the armor needs by requesting the government allow the impressment of enough iron to cover the ship AND complete the RR connection. For several reasons, the Engineer Bureau/War Department/Davis chose the Lawton to Live Oak route to connect Florida to Georgia. After fighting the extremely self-centered President of the Florida RR, David Yulee, the connection was completed just as the war ended. Without Yulee's opposition, the connection would have been completed in late '62. (The Florida RR was the one that lost the most iron for the L to L connection)

The line west from Quincy was advocated again when Sherman cut the main GA RRs in late '64. Sims, RR Bureau Chief, fought hard against the plan, since the river boats and the river were a poor and unreliable route.

 

[rebelatsea]

Iron for the RRs in question was 58 or 60# per yard. This works out to 525 tons (2000#).

Thank you Dave, that suggests, I think that the centre wheeler was the smaller of the two plans, The Muscogee casemate covered a larger proportion of the hull, and had that strange armoured barbette type structure aft.

 

[Dilandu]

I find it interesting that the Governor of Florida is being asked for rail for an ironclad being built in Georgia. The iron situation must have been even more critical than usual...

"Critical" may not be the right word... "Catastrophical" would serve better to describe the reality.

 

[Bil R]

Hello John,

Thanks for posting the drawings. You raise some interesting questions that are not easy to answer. By mid-war because of iron shortages and emerging combat reports the CSN began to modify its ironclad designs to improve performance. This included shortening casemates and upgrading armor and armaments to fewer but more powerful guns. The name Muscogee was used locally to describe the construction of what was to become the Jackson but was never an official name. Much like the term Caddo was used initially for the Missouri. That is my understanding from reading various sources. From Gift's letter above he could be describing an 'up-armed' but original design Jackson or it could have been a smaller version. I tend to believe it was the 'up-armed' version. If I recall correctly the Jackson as modified was lengthened but not increased in beam, which is consistent with Porter practice.

Porter's shallow draft, sternwheel ironclad design was developed in late 1861 to early 1862. It was created to take advantage of locally available steam machinery and prepared for Brown's projected ironclads for the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers. I believe the design as drawn by Holcombe above was the one sent to James Martin in Algiers. It was probably also the basis for the original Jackson and Missouri. Of course as completed, both of those vessels ended up differently. Like his other common designs a simple draft with attached specifications would have been sent to potential builders. While it was intended to build identical or very similar vessels, local builders could and would have modified it to take advantage of available resources and conditions. Hence we end up with different appearing vessels.

Dave thanks for the RR details and overall view of the war conditions. You explain very well how different motivations and conditions affect decisions.

All the best,
Bil

 

[georgew]

Bi, All the accepted histories say that The ship constructing at Columbus would have been a "Muscogee" type centre wheeler. The Porter plan shows the design for 8 guns. Are we looking at yet another piece of "received wisdom", was it indeed a reduced Muscogee,
View attachment 106536 View attachment 106537
or was it to the same base design as Missouri, which would make more sense in terms of the number of guns? Here is that plan and the Missouri as completed with only three guns and the aft most gunports blocked.
View attachment 106537
View attachment 106538

Hi Rebel. Just a quick question. I seem to remember seeing a document implying that the bow chasers were pivots, allowing them to fire through the forward broadside ports. The third gun was on the centerline, pivoted and available for either broadside. As depicted, the funnel obstructs the pivot position for the third gun. Isn't it more likely that it (pivot) would have been placed further aft between the last pair of ports? I think the sketch of the Missouri done at the time confirms the forward position of the funnel and is in agreement with you.

 

[rebelatsea]

Hi

Hi Rebel. Just a quick question. I seem to remember seeing a document implying that the bow chasers were pivots, allowing them to fire through the forward broadside ports. The third gun was on the centerline, pivoted and available for either broadside. As depicted, the funnel obstructs the pivot position for the third gun. Isn't it more likely that it (pivot) would have been placed further aft between the last pair of ports? I think the sketch of the Missouri done at the time confirms the forward position of the funnel and is in agreement with you.

Hello,

I've got made multiple sketches trying to get the 5 gun "muscogee" layout , and also the three gun Missouri layout , In her case we know that the final pair of ports were blocked off as they were too close to the machinery in the shortened casemate. Your suggested layout actually makes sense fro both vessels. Back to the pad and pencil, ( I only use the computer for the final plan).

 

[rebelatsea]

In discussion with Charlie Robbins, and following Bil's comments, I think the original ordnance for Porter's big centre wheeler would have been 2 large smoothbore pivots and 6 smaller in broadside - say 2-9"SB and 6 -32 or 42pdrs, as the Jam es Martin contract was for riverine warfare, and large rifles were in short supply at the time anyway.
When it came to Muscogee and Missouri the intended number of guns may have been reduced and the calibre and type increased, in line with contemporary practice elsewhere.

 

[georgew]

Hi

Hello,

I've got made multiple sketches trying to get the 5 gun "muscogee" layout , and also the three gun Missouri layout , In her case we know that the final pair of ports were blocked off as they were too close to the machinery in the shortened casemate. Your suggested layout actually makes sense fro both vessels. Back to the pad and pencil, ( I only use the computer for the final plan).

Hi Rebel. Just a quick addition. In Jeter's, A Man and his Boat on pg 70, is reprinted Letter No. 88 of Lt. J.H. Carter's Letter Book, Carter to Hon.S.R. Mallory, Oct 24th 1863, "...I received your letter of Sept.1st asking for the general character of the "Missouri" since the alterations of the escape of dead water. The first trial trip of the "Missouri" was made on the 17th of June before the iron had been put on the stern. The box for the tiller to work in was then very near the water. I found that when the iron was put on, the box would be entirely under water. After consulting with Cmdr. Brent and Lt.Comdg. Fauntleroy, we all came to the conclusion that the box had better be taken out and the deck raised. We were all under the impression that the speed would be improved, but after the iron was put on and a second trial made, the speed was found to be about the same as before the removal of the box, the iron bringing her by the stern about one foot. The speed of the "Missouri" as she is now is between five and six miles. No fair test has been made in consequence of low water, two miles being as far as she could go. The draft of the "Missouri" is eight feet aft and seven feet forward..." "Missouri" only carried one day's fuel (wood) and Cotton, Jr. (Mary T) was her tender and carried a wood supply for her. Carter expressed the opinion that once the CSA's obstructions were in place, "Missouri" should be used as a floating battery and a majority of her crew used elsewhere. Her guns at this point were one 11-inch, one 9-inch and "an old 32-lb".

 

[rebelatsea]

Hi Rebel. Just a quick addition. In Jeter's, A Man and his Boat on pg 70, is reprinted Letter No. 88 of Lt. J.H. Carter's Letter Book, Carter to Hon.S.R. Mallory, Oct 24th 1863, "...I received your letter of Sept.1st asking for the general character of the "Missouri" since the alterations of the escape of dead water. The first trial trip of the "Missouri" was made on the 17th of June before the iron had been put on the stern. The box for the tiller to work in was then very near the water. I found that when the iron was put on, the box would be entirely under water. After consulting with Cmdr. Brent and Lt.Comdg. Fauntleroy, we all came to the conclusion that the box had better be taken out and the deck raised. We were all under the impression that the speed would be improved, but after the iron was put on and a second trial made, the speed was found to be about the same as before the removal of the box, the iron bringing her by the stern about one foot. The speed of the "Missouri" as she is now is between five and six miles. No fair test has been made in consequence of low water, two miles being as far as she could go. The draft of the "Missouri" is eight feet aft and seven feet forward..." "Missouri" only carried one day's fuel (wood) and Cotton, Jr. (Mary T) was her tender and carried a wood supply for her. Carter expressed the opinion that once the CSA's obstructions were in place, "Missouri" should be used as a floating battery and a majority of her crew used elsewhere. Her guns at this point were one 11-inch, one 9-inch and "an old 32-lb".

Thanks for that, I have the book. Carter "acquired" weapons from wherever he could. The centre wheel is fundamentally defective in concept ,but John Roy appears to have made it work in his experiments. shame he wasn't around for the the Missouri and Muscogee. Maybe if they had been cut short and made sternwheelers the performance may have improved !