Slavers?

[archieclement]

Am reading a account of the start of the war, it says all the Confederacy had to start with was 1 naval vessel (Fulton), 4 revenue cutters, 3 slavers, and 2 privately owned steamers.

Would these have been old foreign slave trade ships, domestic slave trade ships, or ships meant to police slave trade? And was curious if anyone had idea of the 3 ships and their names?

 

[leftyhunter]

Am reading a account of the start of the war, it says all the Confederacy had to start with was 1 naval vessel (Fulton), 4 revenue cutters, 3 slavers, and 2 privately owned steamers.

Would these have been old foreign slave trade ships, domestic slave trade ships, or ships meant to police slave trade? And was curious if anyone had idea of the 3 ships and their names?

Paging [USER=6349]@Mark F. Jenkins
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Am reading a account of the start of the war, it says all the Confederacy had to start with was 1 naval vessel (Fulton), 4 revenue cutters, 3 slavers, and 2 privately owned steamers.

Would these have been old foreign slave trade ships, domestic slave trade ships, or ships meant to police slave trade? And was curious if anyone had idea of the 3 ships and their names?

I know smuggling slaves into the US continued up until at least 1860. President Lincoln had the first and last convicted slave smuggler hanged.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rhea Cole]

There were special built schooners that transported "extra" slaves from Virginia to Louisiana. The other option was a months long walk via the Natchez Trace to The Forks in the Road Slave Market. Do you know the names of the vessels? It is possible that the slave transports are what they used.

 

[archieclement]

No, they not named, at first I thought as slave trade (international) had expired, mabye old ships.....

But then I considered domestic trade might be possible say Norfolk-Charleston-Mobile-N.O.

Was curious, hadn't ever heard reference to the slavers before, was curious the names and fates.

Would assume if had bunks, use as accommodation ships might have been possible

 

[Carronade]

"Slaver" meant ships that transported slaves. I've only seen the term used for ships in the trans-Atlantic trade, usually fast schooners or brigantines of the Baltimore clipper type once the trade was made illegal.

I've never heard or thought about slavers in the coastal trade, but I suppose there could be such.

Slavers crammed in as many bodies as they could, so I doubt they would be very popular as accommodations for anyone who had a choice

 

[archieclement]

I assumed they could remove rows of bunks as accommodation ships so not as crowded, that or hospital ship would seem the easiest conversion to me

If indeed sail, with the blockade, possible conversions/uses would seem limited

 

[byron ed]

I assumed they could remove rows of bunks as accommodation ships so not as crowded, that or hospital ship would seem the easiest conversion to me...

I am periodically flabbergasted at what some folks suppose the reality of the slave South and the Confederacy actually was!

In the slave South slaves were livestock, commodity goods. There sure wouldn't have been overdue consideration to avoiding crowding. The word "accommodation" sure isn't relevant here. A slaver merely needed a big hollow hold with as many wood racks as it takes to cram in as many bodies as as the square footage of the hold allows. A common coal transport or fishing vessel would be seen as an easier conversion than a hospital ship.

Think what it would take to re-purpose a former hospital ship: they'd have to rip out the ward kitchen and all of the ward warming stoves and all the separated bunks with their mattresses, not to mention the apothecary and doctor's and nurse's quarters to boot. None of that was necessary for the two or three days* they would be maintaining their cargo on the coastal routes. It's a business. There was no need to consider the comfort or feeding of the stock for that short a period. The word "wastage" is what's more appropriate here.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* by this time there was no regular cross-Atlantic trade in slaves, only occasional and surreptitious.

 

[John S. Carter]

"Slaver" meant ships that transported slaves. I've only seen the term used for ships in the trans-Atlantic trade, usually fast schooners or brigantines of the Baltimore clipper type once the trade was made illegal.

I've never heard or thought about slavers in the coastal trade, but I suppose there could be such.

Slavers crammed in as many bodies as they could, so I doubt they would be very popular as accommodations for anyone who had a choice

One is dealing with the amount of those blacks who would surrive the crossing.This was a business dealing in human cargo ,The more cargo then the amount of cargo surviving the passage across the ocean would bring more profit the the owner of the ship and to the merchant who would handle the final transaction at the market.After years of this the captain of the ship would know how many passengers that he could transport to cover the purchase of their tickets,spaces,and food,sorry no enertainment saves on coast.There was room provided that the passengers would be able to walk around while the the spaces were removed of any passengers who were no longer able to finish this journey and if the captain was a sanitatiion sought then maybe he would wash down the interior.Remember raceism played no part in this ,This was a transport of CARGO as any other CARGO.Profit and Loss on the sheet was the concern here.Question would the system continue if it were not profitable or if some other labor force could have been found to do the amount and sought of labor that these guest were to be required to do?Then there is the fact that these future servants and field hands came from a area of the world which did not have the developement of the European society,and unfortunley that thought would follow these people of hundreds of years.The question is how did these vistors from a different world look upon the European and at times is that same view present in both?Suggested reading= Death or Liberty -African Americans and Revolutionary America -Douglas R, Egerton-Heirs of the Founders -the epic rivalry of Henry Clay,John Calhoun and Daniel Webster,the second generation of American Giants-H,W. Brands and NO Property in Man,Slavery and Antislavery at the Nations;s Founding -Sean Wilentz.

 

[Lubliner]

I know smuggling slaves into the US continued up until at least 1860. President Lincoln had the first and last convicted slave smuggler hanged.
Leftyhunter

Hi, @leftyhunter. I have come upon 2 incidents reported in the O. R. N. Series 1, Vol. 1; first on page 11-13, and the second on page 24.
First: April 21, 1861 by the U. S. S. Saratoga, Commander Alfred Taylor reports on capturing the 'Nightingale ' at Kabenda (African Coast) saying;
"....observing her at anchor in this port...boarded her...was induced to believe that she was preparing to receive slaves....[and later]....boarding her by surprise...when it was found she already had in 961 slaves and was expecting more."
Second: May 22, 1861 by the U. S. S. Constellation, Captain J. S. Nicholas reports from the Congo River;
"....I yesterday captured at Punta da Lenba the American brig Triton. She had no slaves on board, but every preparation for their reception had been made."
So it appears that slaving had been continued on through the very beginnings of our conflict. The first ship mentioned was out of Boston and flying an American flag.
Lubliner.

 

[archieclement]

I don't mind the slaving discussion as it's related, but what I wondered specifically was, does anyone know the 3 ships on hand in confederate ports at the start of the war?

 

[archieclement]

I am periodically flabbergasted at what some folks suppose the reality of the slave South and the Confederacy actually was!

In the slave South slaves were livestock, commodity goods. There sure wouldn't have been overdue consideration to avoiding crowding. The word "accommodation" sure isn't relevant here. A slaver merely needed a big hollow hold with as many wood racks as it takes to cram in as many bodies as as the square footage of the hold allows. A common coal transport or fishing vessel would be seen as an easier conversion than a hospital ship.

Think what it would take to re-purpose a former hospital ship: they'd have to rip out the ward kitchen and all of the ward warming stoves and all the separated bunks with their mattresses, not to mention the apothecary and doctor's and nurse's quarters to boot. None of that was necessary for the two or three days* they would be maintaining their cargo on the coastal routes. It's a business. There was no need to consider the comfort or feeding of the stock for that short a period. The word "wastage" is what's more appropriate here.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* by this time there was no regular cross-Atlantic trade in slaves, only occasional and surreptitious.

I am flabbergasted at times as well as some people's attempts to apparently be continually disingenious......

Accommondation ship is indeed a naval term for a ship to simply house naval personal portside. Ships have been repurposed as such that didn't allready have bunks in place.....if a slave ship has crowded rows of bunks....removing some to repurpose the ship wouldn't be any harder then putting bunks in one that none. It's use before the war would be rather irrelevant if it was repurposed during the war. Early accommondation and hospital ships were seldom purpose built, but more often conversions of existing ships that had been built for other purposes. Most frequently cargo ships whose cargos hadn't even been people.....so not seeing one whose cargo had been people would somehow be a harder conversion then any other type of cargo.

So I indeed realize the roles are different, but just as a tramp steamboat could be converted in a gunboat, ram, cotton clad or iron clad, a ship built for the slave trade could also be converted into something else.......if the role was the same or it was allready suitable, it wouldn't need converted, the very act of conversion is saying they weren't the same....but would take modifying

 

[tomlamarcooughlin]

Wikipedia has several different lists of ships of the Confederate Navy. Below is one group that may (or may not) contain former slave ships. Note the famous America of the sailing race America Cup fame.

• CSS Alabama, screw steamer, sloop-of-war, built in Birkenhead, England by John Laird Sons and Company, sunk: June 19, 1864
• CSS Alexandra, screw steamer, bark-rigged, built in Liverpool, England, seized before delivery: April 5, 1863
• CSS America, racing yacht, scuttled: 1862
• CSS Archer, schooner, captured: June 28, 1863
• CSS Caleb Cushing, revenue cutter, burned: June 28, 1863
• CSS Chickamauga, screw steamer, burned
• CSS Clarence, brig, burned: June 12, 1863
• CSS Florida, screw steamer, sloop, captured: October 7, 1864
• CSS Georgia, screw steamer, iron, sold: June 1, 1864
• CSS Georgiana, steamer, destroyed: After leaving port on March 20, 1863 the steamer is destroyed on March 22, 1863
• CSS Lapwing, bark, burned: June 20, 1863
• CSS Nashville, side-wheel steamer, brig rigged, sold and used as privateer Rattlesnake and sunk, February 28, 1862
• CSS Rappahannock, screw steamer, sloop-of-war, turned over at war's end
• CSS Shenandoah, screw steamer, full rigged, iron-framed, turned over to British Government
• CSS Sumter, screw steamer, sloop, sold: December 19, 1862
• CSS Tacony, bark, burned: June 25, 1863
• CSS Tallahassee, twin-screw steamer, sloop, seized: April 9, 1865 by British Government
• CSS Tuscaloosa, bark, seized: December 29, 1863
• CSS United States, frigate, sail, harbor defense use only, scuttled

 

[Carronade]

Hi, @leftyhunter. I have come upon 2 incidents reported in the O. R. N. Series 1, Vol. 1; first on page 11-13, and the second on page 24.
First: April 21, 1861 by the U. S. S. Saratoga, Commander Alfred Taylor reports on capturing the 'Nightingale ' at Kabenda (African Coast) saying;
"....observing her at anchor in this port...boarded her...was induced to believe that she was preparing to receive slaves....[and later]....boarding her by surprise...when it was found she already had in 961 slaves and was expecting more."
Second: May 22, 1861 by the U. S. S. Constellation, Captain J. S. Nicholas reports from the Congo River;
"....I yesterday captured at Punta da Lenba the American brig Triton. She had no slaves on board, but every preparation for their reception had been made."
So it appears that slaving had been continued on through the very beginnings of our conflict. The first ship mentioned was out of Boston and flying an American flag.
Lubliner.

I was surprised to read some years ago in Gotham, the Pulitzer Prize-winning history of New York City, that from January 1859 though August 1860 "nearly one hundred" ships left NY for the slave trade, presumably mostly to the Caribbean.

 

[Rhea Cole]

In the 1840-50's the firm of Franklin & Armfield had schooners special built for transportation of "extra slaves". That is the marketing term for surplus labor. The extras from Virginia, Maryland, etc, were taken to Franklin's Angola plantation in Louisiana. If that name rings a bell it is because Franklin's plantation became the state prison. There is no escaping the place.

At Angola, the slaves were sorted. Those that were ill were sold off immediately. F & A's records are intact, their Virginia HQ is a NPS site. There exist a number of correspondence sets where the partners make jolly about unloading stock that died soon after. Healthy individuals were allowed to recover from their passage & were brought to market well fed & newly clothed. F&A made enormous fortunes in this way.

The attractive women had been sexually assaulted in Virginia. Franklin & Armfield had a rating system that indicated how the women reacted. A "fancy girl" that was light skinned could fetch enormous sums of money. "Ordinary fancy girls" also sold at a premium. Individuals with particular tastes & brothels in New Orleans were always on the lookout when F & A announced a new cargo for sale.

On riverboats, slaves were transported on the main deck, just like other animals & ordinary cargo.

It was still legal to transport kidnapped people from West Africa to Cuba or Brazil. Far more slaves were sent directly to Brazil than to the U.S. Most slaves imported to the U.S. came from the Sugar Islands. Breaking Africans or Haitians was expensive & could also be dangerous. POWs with tribal facial scaring & teeth filed to a point didn't just look ferocious. The slave revolt on the lower Mississippi in 1840 (?) is a prime example of how badly wrong things could go. Transporting & selling domestically raised stock was both efficient & practical.

F & A pioneered the use of specially designed fast schooners for transporting slaves. Unlike the African slavers, F&A had every reason to deliver their stock to market in prime condition. It wasn't a matter of cramming people onto a shelf in the full knowledge that about a third of them would die during the passage. Schooners of F&A's design would have been prime candidates for conversation.

A schooner of that class would have made a good candidate for conversation to a warship because it was fitted out for a large number of people. A trading schooner would have had a small crew & galley. The large galley, design of her accommodations & holds would have made a slave transport ideal for the large crew of a man of war.

The NavSource photo index has a long list of CSS vessels. Each is accompanied by a biography & images if they exist. Vessels that were captured & became USN vessels often have extensive citations. That archive is both the easiest to use & most comprehensive that I am aware of.

 

[byron ed]

...so not seeing one whose cargo had been people would somehow be a harder conversion then any other type of cargo.

Me neither. A hospital ship however...

 

[byron ed]

...It was still legal to transport kidnapped people from West Africa to Cuba or Brazil...

Well, no. Cuba had been disallowing the importation of slaves since 1822 and Brazil had been liberating all imported slaves since 1831.*

England had banned the cross-Atlantic importation of slaves in 1807, and it was they who enforced that ban over the whole Atlantic with their considerable navy (with whatever small assistance the U.S. Navy could provide). "Britain rules the waves" was not just a phrase. The British Navy patrolled for slavers in the same way they patrolled for pirates -- which is to say regardless of any other country's legal recognition of the cross-Atlantic trade of slaves. But again, both Cuba and Brazil had disallowed the cross-Atlantic trade by 1831 anyway.

So any "slave ship" converted from anything, or converted for military use later, had only ever been used in black-market mode.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Cuba (a Spanish colony) per a treaty between Spain and England, and Brazil per its own internal legislation. It should be noted that
slavery itself remained legal in Cuba until 1886 and Brazil until 1888.

 

[byron ed]

...So it appears that slaving had been continued on through the very beginnings of our conflict. The first ship mentioned was out of Boston and flying an American flag...

Importation of slaves wasn't legal in the Union or the Confederacy during our conflict.

So there's no significance whatsoever that a black-market slaver out of Boston was flying an American flag. There were criminals doing all kinds of criminal activity during our conflict, none of it legal by the Union or Confederate governments.

 

[archieclement]

Still not having any luck.

I like others orginally was thinking a sail schooner or bark.....which is still a possibility if they became one of the small private privateers or runners instead of CSS......

However now also wondering if a smaller steamer or even possibly a western riverboat may be possibility.

Have never came across a reference to a riverboat specifically built or outfitted for the trade, but it's trade was certainly going on up and mainly down the Mississippi River valley.

 

[Bil R]

Hello Archieclement,

What is the source of the original account mentioned in the first post? I am always curious about discovering possible new CSN vessels. During the Confederacy's early period (February - June 1861) a number of Southern states created their own 'State Navy' consisting of hastily converted or seized vessels (civilian steamers, revenue cutters, etc.). These were later transferred to the CSN. One of the revenue cutter's seizures in New Orleans was considered illegal and it was ordered to be returned to the US Revenue Service but that was not done. I think the 'slavers' in question were probably akin to the F & A schooners described above by Rhea Cole. I had not considered the extensive, intra-state, domestic slave trade previously and its supporting infrastructure. Yet, another avenue for research. Rhea has provided some insight into the harsh reality of the times. Where are F & A's archival records kept? Which NPS site?

The slave trade itself requires a lifetime of research. I have visited both the eastern and western coasts of Africa and it seems every older port has a former slave market with a supporting fortress and a corresponding 'door of no return'. For centuries it was a source of wealth not only for Europeans, but also for Arabs and others of the Ottoman Empire. Yes, raiding parties from those sources would occasionally seize and transport captured Africans, but most slaves were sold to coastal dealers as captives from African tribes themselves as prizes of internecine conflict. It was profitable for them too. There are very few true innocents in that human tragedy.

All the best,
Bil