Nashville/Thomas L Wragg/Rattlesnake

rebelatsea

Captain
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Location
Kent ,England.
Built in 1853, she was seized at Charleston in 1861 and commissioned as a commerce raiding cruiser. At this time, she was only armed with two 12 pdr guns. After a short and disappointing career, she was sold and became the blockade runner Thomas L. Wragg.

In November, 1862, she was converted at Savannah to act as a privateer and renamed the Rattlesnake. She tried to slip out to sea through the Ogeechee River but ran aground near Fort McAllister. In spite of the fort, she was attacked and destroyed by the monitor USS Montauk. My question is what was her new armament as a privateer? The accounts of her destruction that I have read mention a large pivot gun and indicate that there were others in broadside, but little more. I really would like to know what her armament was and will be very grateful for any help that you may be able to give.
 
Hm;

http://www.mqamericana.com/Arming_the_CSS_Nashville.html

Your Telegraphic Dispatch directing me to “Get back the
two Rifled Cannon loaned Com. Ingraham for the Nashville as she does
not sail for Government” was duly received and immediately forwarded
to Capt. Pegram, the Commanding Officer of the Nashville (Com.
Ingraham having gone to Richmond). Capt. P replied that the Nashville
was still under orders of the Government.


And here she is mentioned as

http://www.csnavy.org/ships,area.htm

C. S. S. NASHVILLE.
Acquisition. -- Seized in the port of Charleston, S.C., in 1861 by the Confederate Government and fitted as a cruiser.
Description.--
Class: Side-wheel merchant steamer.
Rig: Brig.
Tonnage.--1,221.
Dimensions.--Length, 215' 6"; beam, 34' 6"; depth, 21' 9".
Battery.--November 21, 1861, 26-pdr. rifles.
Disposition.--Sold to private parties in 1862 and became the blockade runner Thomas L. Wragg. Subsequently became the privateer Rattlesnake and was destroyed by the Federals in Ogeechee River in 1863.


And,

C. S. S. RATTLESNAKE.
Description.--Steam ship.
Tonnage.--1,200.
Battery.---6 guns.
Disposition.--Destroyed February 28, 1863, by U. S. Monitor Montauk, Commander John L. Worden, U. S. N.
Remarks.--Formerly Nashville; commissioned November 5, 1862.
 
Hm;

http://www.mqamericana.com/Arming_the_CSS_Nashville.html

Your Telegraphic Dispatch directing me to “Get back the
two Rifled Cannon loaned Com. Ingraham for the Nashville as she does
not sail for Government” was duly received and immediately forwarded
to Capt. Pegram, the Commanding Officer of the Nashville (Com.
Ingraham having gone to Richmond). Capt. P replied that the Nashville
was still under orders of the Government.


And here she is mentioned as

http://www.csnavy.org/ships,area.htm

C. S. S. NASHVILLE.
Acquisition. -- Seized in the port of Charleston, S.C., in 1861 by the Confederate Government and fitted as a cruiser.
Description.--
Class: Side-wheel merchant steamer.
Rig: Brig.
Tonnage.--1,221.
Dimensions.--Length, 215' 6"; beam, 34' 6"; depth, 21' 9".
Battery.--November 21, 1861, 26-pdr. rifles.
Disposition.--Sold to private parties in 1862 and became the blockade runner Thomas L. Wragg. Subsequently became the privateer Rattlesnake and was destroyed by the Federals in Ogeechee River in 1863.


And,

C. S. S. RATTLESNAKE.
Description.--Steam ship.
Tonnage.--1,200.
Battery.---6 guns.
Disposition.--Destroyed February 28, 1863, by U. S. Monitor Montauk, Commander John L. Worden, U. S. N.
Remarks.--Formerly Nashville; commissioned November 5, 1862.
Thanks ,so now we know her battery was six guns as Rattlesnake. every little helps.
 
Glad to help!

P.S. According to the typical weapon arragement on CSN cruisers, i may speculate, that she was probably armed with 1-2 large pivot guns (rifles or smoothbores), and several small 12-32 pdr pieces.
That sounds about right, we know she had one large pivot gun. A friend of mine is undertaking the thankless task of identifying where the naval ordnance came from and where it went. With some success I may add, and solved a couple of ironclad battery mysteries in the process.
 
Hi John,

It was orginally pla nned to mount a broadside battery of light 32-pounders plus pivot gun. They had the guns but the problem was that the decks would not support the wt of the guns without major reconstruction. Thats why she carried those 2 army 12's ...which were mounted on field charrages, not regular naval ones.

To mount 6 guns would mean somewhere she received some major work down below. to be able to support that type of weight on deck. It sounds like she may have mounted those MLR guns on pivots (center line) and maby 4 lighter broad side guns.

GRIZZ
 
Hi John,

It was orginally pla nned to mount a broadside battery of light 32-pounders plus pivot gun. They had the guns but the problem was that the decks would not support the wt of the guns without major reconstruction. Thats why she carried those 2 army 12's ...which were mounted on field charrages, not regular naval ones.

To mount 6 guns would mean somewhere she received some major work down below. to be able to support that type of weight on deck. It sounds like she may have mounted those MLR guns on pivots (center line) and maby 4 lighter broad side guns.

GRIZZ
Thank you Grizz.
 
Hi John,
This is a follow up. Should have said this earlier, part of the problem of conversion to a warship was that as a coastal passenger ship she was built with deck houses. The cannon were old pre war USN types. Have been looking
( believe 8 light 32's and an 8'' pivot gun but cannot find notes so cannot totally conferm this).

GRIZZ
 
Grizz,
with the need to demolish deck houses, strengthen decks, and the stantions holding them up, it would have certainly have been too time consuming a process ,even assuming the hull was strong enough. They wanted to get her to sea as soon as possible.
 
My good friend Charlie Robbins has come up with this very interesting piece of information

He has located a copy of the book “Tangled Machinery and Charred Relics; The Historical and Archaeological Investigation of the CSS Nashville” by Franklin Chance, Paul Chance, and David Topper. It does provide
some further information about the armament of the ship as the privateer Rattlesnake. In his application
to secretary Benjamin for a “letter of marque and reprisal”, Captain T. Harrison Baker, her commander and
owner, described her as “Rattlesnake, 1204 tons, 6 guns, 130 men”. The “Journal of Commerce” of
Liverpool described her as “cut down and her houses on deck have been completely removed. She has
also been armed with two splendid guns, one of them being a 100 pdr rifle.” On 2 February, 1863, the
commander at Fort McAllister, Colonel R.H. Anderson. ordered the two guns of the CSS Rattlesnake placed
on Richmond Bluff, to the rear of the fort. The ship was now aground near the fort. Admiral DuPont, in
describing the ship to Secretary Welles, said that “she had a heavy rifle gun on a pivot as a part of her
armament”. Captain Worden of the USS Montauk, in reporting on the destruction of the Rattlesnake to
Admiral DuPont, said that “At 9:20 am a large pivot gun mounted abaft her foremast exploded from the
heat”. At that time, the ship had been set afire by shells from the USS Montauk. Finally, the books says
that a number of ordnance items have been recovered from the wreck, including 32 pdr and 24 pdr shot
and shell and loose grape shot “probably intended for the pivot gun”. Apparently, no cannon have been
recovered, which is not surprising. I would think that these would have been quickly salvaged by the
Confederates and used in the Savannah defenses. I hope that this will be of interest to you. Please feel
free to share it with Grizz if you think that It would be of interest to him.

It appears therefore that her battery consisted of 1-8" shell gun forward, 1 -32 pdr rifle aft, both on pivots and 2-32pdr and 2 -24pdr SB in broadside.
Contrary to my opinion earlier ,the vessel appears to have undergone a drastic modification to enable it to house this battery making her almost a regular warship.
 
Tangled Machinery and Charred Relics is one on my to-get list. Would it be correct to summarize it as undergoing very minimal modifications in her original guise as CSS Nashville, and then the more-extensive modifications upon becoming the privateer Rattlesnake?
 
Tangled Machinery and Charred Relics is one on my to-get list. Would it be correct to summarize it as undergoing very minimal modifications in her original guise as CSS Nashville, and then the more-extensive modifications upon becoming the privateer Rattlesnake?
I think it's a fair enough summary. I don't have plans of the vessel, but it would be interesting to try to work out how she was altered.
 
I think it's a fair enough summary. I don't have plans of the vessel, but it would be interesting to try to work out how she was altered.


Mark/John- To expand on my previous reply, I believe that the CSS Nashville was little altered from her commercial configuration for her role as a cruiser. This is evidenced by how quickly she entered service and by the fact that her armament was restricted to two 12 pdrs, all it seemed that she could carry without strengthening. In her next reincarnation as the blockade runner Thomas L. Wragg, I think that she was little changed as her emphasis was now on speed and cargo carrying capability. Strengthening her to carry a heavier armament came later, when she was again repurposed as the privateer Rattlesnake. This is when other alterations to her superstructure were reported. The references quoted in Tangled Machinery and Charred Relics seem to bear this out. I do recommend this book for anyone interested in the history of this much named and fascinating ship.
 
Mark/John- To expand on my previous reply, I believe that the CSS Nashville was little altered from her commercial configuration for her role as a cruiser. This is evidenced by how quickly she entered service and by the fact that her armament was restricted to two 12 pdrs, all it seemed that she could carry without strengthening. In her next reincarnation as the blockade runner Thomas L. Wragg, I think that she was little changed as her emphasis was now on speed and cargo carrying capability. Strengthening her to carry a heavier armament came later, when she was again repurposed as the privateer Rattlesnake. This is when other alterations to her superstructure were reported. The references quoted in Tangled Machinery and Charred Relics seem to bear this out. I do recommend this book for anyone interested in the history of this much named and fascinating ship.
It strikes me that in being altered to carry such a heavy ordnance she almost foreshadows the armed merchant cruiser concept.
 
Hello John,

The Nashville is an intriguing vessel with a colorful history. I too, have struggled with her appearance and been challenged by the form and shape of her bow. There are a couple of images that may offer good clues. One is a fine lithograph showing her port broadside while docked in the UK. I believe it was from the 'London Illustrated News'. The quality of the engraving suggests that it was made from a photograph of the period. Another source is Ridgely-Nevitt's 'American Steamships on the Atlantic'. He goes into some detail about the Nashville's origin and describes how she was a development of Webb's Union of 1850, both Spofford and Tileston coastal steamers.

What is interesting is that a set of lines is provided for the Union and they are practically identical to the Nashville's known measures. Moreover, it is known that the Union, which was considered an excellent design, had a straight stem with a short bowsprit, but these lines show a clipper bow. In 1853 Webb was busy building his legendary clipper ships and may have deferred construction of the Nashville to William Collyer, with whom he had good ties. Because of the Union's success Webb may have provided the half-hull or lines to Collyer to satisfy S & T's desire for a comparable running mate. Aside from the shape of the stem, the Nashville had one larger engine as compared to the Union's two, and had a reduced rig, with only two masts rather than three. Her hull arrangements were the same. While this is speculative, the lines of the Union may very well represent those of the Nashville. They will certainly give a good basis for a reconstruction.

All the best,
Bil
 
Hello John,

The Nashville is an intriguing vessel with a colorful history. I too, have struggled with her appearance and been challenged by the form and shape of her bow. There are a couple of images that may offer good clues. One is a fine lithograph showing her port broadside while docked in the UK. I believe it was from the 'London Illustrated News'. The quality of the engraving suggests that it was made from a photograph of the period. Another source is Ridgely-Nevitt's 'American Steamships on the Atlantic'. He goes into some detail about the Nashville's origin and describes how she was a development of Webb's Union of 1850, both Spofford and Tileston coastal steamers.

What is interesting is that a set of lines is provided for the Union and they are practically identical to the Nashville's known measures. Moreover, it is known that the Union, which was considered an excellent design, had a straight stem with a short bowsprit, but these lines show a clipper bow. In 1853 Webb was busy building his legendary clipper ships and may have deferred construction of the Nashville to William Collyer, with whom he had good ties. Because of the Union's success Webb may have provided the half-hull or lines to Collyer to satisfy S & T's desire for a comparable running mate. Aside from the shape of the stem, the Nashville had one larger engine as compared to the Union's two, and had a reduced rig, with only two masts rather than three. Her hull arrangements were the same. While this is speculative, the lines of the Union may very well represent those of the Nashville. They will certainly give a good basis for a reconstruction.

All the best,
Bil
Thank you Bil - oh dear - yet another project !
 
Why was Nashville sold off to private interests? She wasn't that old and relatively fast - seems like a useful vessel to have under CS control.

Thanks,
USS ALASKA
 
Back
Top