Setting Torpedoes in Charleston Harbor

Yes, being from Mobile, AL you are correct. Mobile was the best fortified city in the South. There were several rings of defense
about the city and its outlying area. Ft. Morgan, Gains and Powell from the Gulf. Ft. Blakeley and Spanish Ft. From the northern approach to the city. There were numerous forts around the city on every side. As a lad I use to play on the breastworks in the modern day residential areas. I use to hear a neighbor tell about sunken Civil War ships that would appear at low tide in the tributary rivers of the Mobile delta. One that was recovered in the last 35 years is on display in the park in Bay Minette, AL. It was a mortar barge, mortar intact. Several Gulf hurricanes have moved some of the wrecks but I believe relic hunters are still searching. Someone told not long ago about a large one in the Blakeley river. There were several large ammunition dumps found in last 50-75 years in areas around the city. My father had the contents of one ammo dump found.
When a wing of the Mobile infirmary was being built another large cache was found but kept from the public because of construction delay and the building erected over it. For a complete overlay of the fortifications, google, Mobile, Alabama in the Civil War and you will have copies of engineers' maps of the forts and batteries around the area.

Something I've wondered, when were all these defenses established? Forts Morgan and Gaines defending the entrance to Mobile Bay were prewar of course, but I would guess 'best fortified city in the South' would largely reflect wartime improvements? I've often thought that Mobile would have been a better objective for Farragut after New Orleans than pushing his ocean-going ships up the Mississippi, assuming that sufficient army troops could be made available. With the Union already controlling Pensacola and offshore islands, they would have had a mutually supporting chain of bases and been able to promptly shift ships or troops to any threatened point. Actually occupying the ports would be the best means of enforcing the blockade of course, and there would be a constant threat of raiding or advancing up any of the rivers. Presumably the defenses in mid-1862 were less formidable than they would be in 1864-65. Seems like it might have been advantageous.
 
Last edited:
Something I've wondered, when were all these defenses established? Forts Morgan and Gaines defending the entrance to Mobile Bay were prewar of course, but I would guess 'best fortified city in the South' would largely reflect wartime improvements? I've often thought that Mobile would have been a better objective for Farragut after New Orleans than pushing his ocean-going ships up the Mississippi, assuming that sufficient army troops could be made available. With the Union already controlling Pensacola and offshore islands, they would have had a mutually supporting chain of bases and been able to promptly shift ships or troops to any threatened point. Actually occupying the ports would be the best means of enforcing the blockade of course, and there would be a constant threat of raiding or advancing up any of the rivers. Presumably the defenses in mid-1862 were less formidable than they would be in 1864-64. Seems like it might have been advantageous.
Your point is well made. It is interesting how many times the CSN and/or Army planned to retake Pensacola and Port Royal. The initial target of the Laird Rams was to be Port Royal. Admiral Buchannan was still entertaining schemes to retake Pensacola in early 1864 and allocated men and equipment for the effort. Union forces were very wise to sit tight and keep the cork in the neck of the bottle until demands from other theaters thinned out the defenders of Mobile.
 
I use to hear a neighbor tell about sunken Civil War ships that would appear at low tide in the tributary rivers of the Mobile delta. One that was recovered in the last 35 years is on display in the park in Bay Minette, AL.
Thanks !
I was not aware of this find.
Now I have another site to check out the next time I'm down there.

Some interesting articles about the 1967 amateur recovery :

http://blog.al.com/press-releases/2013/07/historic_mortar_to_be_moved_to.html

http://www.gulfcoastnewstoday.com/t...6-f39a-11e2-80af-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=story

http://www.gulfcoastnewstoday.com/t...cle_aae28684-f399-11e2-be0b-0019bb2963f4.html
 
Last edited:
Andy, I've also just seen your post in another thread about towed torpedos. There must have been quite a number of unexploded torpedos in our coastal waters after the war. Do you have any information on how they were found, marked and eliminated? Were they detonated? If so, how was that accomplished? It must have taken nerves of steel.
There are several accounts of Confederate officers and other men being used to locate and destroy the left over torpedoes in Charleston harbor. M.M. Gray was Captain of Torpedoes and upon surrender of the city, he assisted in removal of torpedoes. I forget the reference off the top of my head, but I am pretty sure it's in the ORN Vol. 12 or 16. There were others as well and torpedo boats were also used to blow up the submerged torpedoes.
 
Was there any other victims of Confederate Torpedoes other than Techumsah and Cairo?
Several sources say 40ish vessels were lost to torpedoes, one or two suggesting closer to 70...

For an incomplete, chronological list of 40 vessels sunk by torpedoes prior to July 1864, see Scharf 1877, 768. In the most detailed listing found, Schiller (2011, Appendix 1, 139-67) describes 43 vessels lost or damages by torpedoes, five of which are unconfirmed by the author and 13 of which occurred between 1861 and 1863. Also see Bell (2003, 471) who lists 43 Union vessels lost to torpedoes. Rains (1877, 256) offers there were 58 vessels sunk by torpedo. In a note at the end of the article D. H. Maury noted that Rains offered an incorrect number of torpedo sinkings in Mobile (three) that should be corrected to12, raising the total to 67. In a later article, Maury (1894, 78) offers a similarly high number stating, “official reports show that sixty-eight Federal vessels were destroyed by torpedoes during the War Between the States.” However, neither Rains nor Maury lists the lost vessels.
 
At least one of the torpedos is said to have weighed 3000 pounds. USS New Ironsides anchored right on top of it, but it failed to explode when the Confederates tried to set it off by electric wire from shore.

I was just writing about this event. The only accounts I can find are from the Union side (Letter from F. H. Harleston to Lieutenant Thurston dated 23 April 1863 found onboard CSS Atlanta ORN Vol. 14 (1902), 111. ) or second-hand sources (e.g., Matthews 1915- who says it was 2000 lbs, Perry 1965 , Schafer 1996, etc.)
Does anyone know of a Confederate primary source (possibly from the ORN or ORA) about the New Ironsides near disaster of 7 April 1863???
 
IIRC, Wideman discusses the desperate scarcity of telegraph cable in the Confederacy, particularly in the West-- so electrical line was not at all easy to come by.

In 'Infernal Machines', doesn't Perry speak of the South having to resort to using a supply of Union telegraph cable? IIRC, it was washed up on the Virginia coast. Apparently it was pretty beat up but was the best they had at that time.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
I've often thought that Mobile would have been a better objective for Farragut after New Orleans than pushing his ocean-going ships up the Mississippi, assuming that sufficient army troops could be made available. With the Union already controlling Pensacola and offshore islands, they would have had a mutually supporting chain of bases and been able to promptly shift ships or troops to any threatened point. Actually occupying the ports would be the best means of enforcing the blockade of course, and there would be a constant threat of raiding or advancing up any of the rivers. Presumably the defenses in mid-1862 were less formidable than they would be in 1864-65. Seems like it might have been advantageous.


Farragut would have agreed with you completely!


Thinking about this - which operation would have been more useful to the Union? Severing the western states from the Confederacy and denying the use of the Mississippi as a transportation artery or closing the port of Mobile by taking those forts? Was that port entrance really that valuable as compared to the inland waterway? I don't recall Wise commenting on all that many vessels coming in and out of there. And if Mobile is taken in '62, wouldn't that release a lot of Confederate manpower for other operations? Perhaps causing the forcing of the Mississippi to be all that more costly?

Thanks,
USS ALASKA
 
Thinking about this - which operation would have been more useful to the Union? Severing the western states from the Confederacy and denying the use of the Mississippi as a transportation artery or closing the port of Mobile by taking those forts? Was that port entrance really that valuable as compared to the inland waterway? I don't recall Wise commenting on all that many vessels coming in and out of there. And if Mobile is taken in '62, wouldn't that release a lot of Confederate manpower for other operations? Perhaps causing the forcing of the Mississippi to be all that more costly?

Thanks,
USS ALASKA

First, I would question whether taking Mobile would detract from the Federal campaign to secure the Mississippi. Farragut's expedition upriver to Vicksburg achieved nothing. The Department/Army of the Gulf did little until 1863, and even then the siege of Port Hudson was a sideshow, only possible because Grant was fighting the main battles around Vicksburg.

It was almost inevitable that the clearing (or as some of our friends would say, contaminating) of the Mississippi would be done mainly from the north. The river system facilitated the flow of Union combat power from the whole western part of the country. In contrast, New Orleans was a 2000-mile sea voyage from the bases of Union power - doable but hardly economical. It made perfect sense for seaborne forces to concentrate on securing key points along the coast while the main thrust came downriver.

Nor can I see how capturing Mobile would free up significant Confederate troops. If the Federals took just the forts at the entrance to Mobile Bay, the rebels would have to defend the city. If they took the city, the rebels would have to protect against incursions inland, using the rivers. There would likely be political pressure to retain locally-raised troops in the area.

Incidentally, capturing Mobile would also sever an important Confederate railroad link. For example, when Bragg shifted his army from Mississippi to Chattanooga for the offensive into Kentucky, much of it went via Mobile. The railroad to/from Vicksburg would also be threatened if the Federals were able to advance or raid up the Tombigbee River.

As the war and the Federal armies progressed, Mobile could provide a refuge for a Grierson-style raid or even a March to the Gulf (not quite as catchy as ...to the Sea, though it might still be Sherman doing it). And the Confederates could never be sure when a major Federal force transported by sea might appear there. Overall I don't see the loss of Mobile helping the Confederates or harming the Union cause.
 
Last edited:
You're welcome; didn't mean to come across like delivering a lecture :wink:

Sir, you took the time to answer my query so thanks be to you! I completely forgot about that little 'different gauge / water gap' issue with the railroads at Mobile. I remember reading about the amount of supplies that had to take that route once the path through Tennessee was broken in Black's book. Getting old...but - it beats the alternative...

And dang it - sometimes that is the only way I learn!

Thanks again,
USS ALASKA
 
IIRC, Wideman discusses the desperate scarcity of telegraph cable in the Confederacy, particularly in the West-- so electrical line was not at all easy to come by.

Sirs, found a reference in 'Infernal Machines the Story of Confederate Submarines and Mine Warfare' by Milton F. Perry - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080710647X/?tag=civilwartalkc-20 - that states of mines being connected with "...3,500 foot insulated cooper cable which had been purchased in Nassau for ten dollars a foot."

Not a bad mark-up...
5029

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 
Back
Top