The Navy's Final Tally

John Hartwell

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
On December 4, 1865, Secretary of the Navy presented to Congress his Annual Report, in which he summarized the activities of the U. S. Navy during the course of the Rebellion. The 661 page document included extensive Appendices including reports from officers commanding just about every U.S. naval vessel and shore facility; as well as an accounting of every vessel captured or destroyed, its cargo, date and place of capture/sinking and name of naval vessel responsible.

One interesting section of Welles' report was a tally of

PROPERTY CAPTURED AND DESTROYED.
Naval men, while animated with the noblest feelings of patriotism, and ready to sacrifice their lives for their country whose integrity was imperiled, were impressed at first with the conviction that to them, professionally, the war would offer but limited opportunity, for the rebels were not a commercial people, nor addicted to maritime pursuits. No naval conflicts were anticipated, and it was supposed very few captures would be made, but the efforts of the insurgents, cut off from foreign supplies, and the attempts of unscrupulous foreign adventurers to violate the blockade, have rewarded naval vigilance and fidelity with a large number of prizes, many of them of great value. It is a gratifying circumstance that these prize captures have inured to the benefit of the naval service instead of privateers — differing in this respect from previous wars.

The number of vessels captured and sent to the courts for adjudication from May 1, 1861, to the close of the rebellion, is one thousand one hundred and fifty-one, of which there were:

steamers, 210
schooners, 569
sloops, 139
ships, 13
brigs and brigantines, 29
barks, 25
yachts, 2
small boats, 139
rebel rams and iron-clads, 6
rebel gunboats, torpedo boats, and armed schooners and sloops, 10
class unknown, 7 —

making a total of 1,149.


The numbers of vessels burned, wrecked, sunk, and otherwise destroyed during the same time were:

steamers, 85
schooners, 114
sloops, 32
ships, 2
brigs, 2
barks, 4
small boats, 96
rebel rams, 5
rebel iron-clads, 4
rebel gunboats, torpedo boats, and armed schooners and sloops, 11

total, 355 — making the whole number of vessels captured and destroyed 1,504.
During the war of 1812 the naval vessels, of which there were 301 in service at the close, made but 291 captures. There were 517 commissioned privateers, and their captures numbered 1,428. That war was with a nation having the greatest commerce on the globe. During the recent war we have had no privateers afloat, and the rebels had but a limited commerce from which the prizes of the navy could be made. Nearly all the captures of value were vessels built in so-called neutral ports, and fitted out and freighted in the ports of a government with which we had treaties and were on friendly terms, which had publicly pledged itself to a strict neutrality, and manifested its sincerity, so far as we were concerned, by withdrawing hospitality to our national vessels.

The gross proceeds of property captured since the blockade was instituted, and condemned as prize prior to the first of November, amounts to $21,829,543.96 ; costs and expenses, $1,616,223.96; net proceeds for distribution, $20,501,927.69 There are a number of important cases still before the courts, which will largely increase these amounts.

The value of the 1,149 captured vessels will not be less than twenty-four million five hundred thousand dollars, and of the 355 vessels destroyed at least seven millions of dollars, making a total valuation of not less than thirty-one million five hundred thousand dollars, much of which was British property, engaged in un-neutral commerce and so justly captured and condemned.


Note the gleeful digs at British losses, with whom "we had treaties and were on friendly terms, which had publicly pledged itself to a strict neutrality, and manifested its sincerity, so far as we were concerned, by withdrawing hospitality to our national vessels."

Secretary Welles' full report is available at: https://archive.org/details/annualreportsna10deptgoog
 
I always like to note the small number of steamers relative to the totals... this was, to a great extent, still really the Age of Sail!

Captured:
steamers, 210
rebel rams and iron-clads, 6

Steamers: 216

schooners, 569
sloops, 139
ships, 13
brigs and brigantines, 29
barks, 25
yachts, 2

Sailing craft: 777

small boats, 139

rebel gunboats, torpedo boats, and armed schooners and sloops, 10
class unknown, 7 —

Indeterminate: 17

Destroyed:

steamers, 85
rebel rams, 5
rebel iron-clads, 4

Steamers: 94

schooners, 114
sloops, 32
ships, 2
brigs, 2
barks, 4

Sailing craft: 154

small boats, 96

rebel gunboats, torpedo boats, and armed schooners and sloops, 11

Indeterminate: 11
Steamers sunk or captured: 310 (20.6%) -- of which 69.7% captured, 30.3% destroyed
Sailing vessels sunk or captured: 931 (61.9%) -- of which 83.5% captured, 16.5% destroyed
Small boats sunk or captured: 235 (15.6%) -- of which 34.5% captured, 65.5% destroyed
Indeterminate: 28 (1.9%) -- of which 60.7% captured, 39.3% destroyed

Ignoring small boats and the indeterminates, it appears that, on the odds, it was somewhat easier to capture (instead of destroy) a sailing vessel (83.5%) than a steamer (69.7%)... but the sailing vessels still far outnumbered the steamers by a factor of 3!

(One missing factor here is how many of each type survived the war, but that is much less easy to determine. Some unquestionably did, but taking that census I'll leave to someone else... :wink: )
 
In the case of Welles' report, he was counting hulls instead of blockade-runs... which are both easier to count and make the Navy Department look better. :laugh:

(I know there were at least a few cases where a blockade runner was captured, adjudicated, and sold-- and bought by someone who put her back into blockade running. Welles doesn't indicate this in his tally, so it's anyone's guess whether he allowed for that or not.)

Incidentally, the high proportion of small boats destroyed rather than captured is doubtless due to the usual Union practice of destroying small boats when discovered tied up along the banks or shore, usually crewless. It would not particularly surprise me if this is an undercount.
 
In the case of Welles' report, he was counting hulls instead of blockade-runs... which are both easier to count and make the Navy Department look better. :laugh:

(I know there were at least a few cases where a blockade runner was captured, adjudicated, and sold-- and bought by someone who put her back into blockade running. Welles doesn't indicate this in his tally, so it's anyone's guess whether he allowed for that or not.)

Incidentally, the high proportion of small boats destroyed rather than captured is doubtless due to the usual Union practice of destroying small boats when discovered tied up along the banks or shore, usually crewless.

actually, i didn't think of a blockade runner but (as far as we can use the term) a man of war :D don't tell me they all attacked superior forces against all odds
 
I'm positive the vast majority of the tally indicated were unarmed vessels.

I am trying to think of an instance where the Southern ship had the advantage of the odds. Alabama vs. Hatteras comes to mind, but that ignores the other Union vessels not far off. The Virginia in the first day of Hampton Roads, perhaps, but she was still far outgunned and had most of the Union vessels present not been actually aground, she might have had more trouble. In general, the Confederate vessels were indeed on the short end of the odds.

ETA: The attack on the ironclad Indianola, I think. While it was unarmed boats against an ironclad, the Union was outnumbered in that case, and perhaps even outgunned when you consider the effect of concentrated rapid small arms fire vs. the few big shots the Union boat managed to get off. "The exception that tests the rule."
 
Note the gleeful digs at British losses, with whom "we had treaties and were on friendly terms, which had publicly pledged itself to a strict neutrality, and manifested its sincerity, so far as we were concerned, by withdrawing hospitality to our national vessels."

Secretary Welles' full report is available at: https://archive.org/details/annualreportsna10deptgoog[/QUOTE]

The issues were substantial.
When Grant sent Sheridan to Texas, he instructed General Sheridan to practice neutrality in the English and French sense of the word.
The impact on France, Britain, Canada, Mexico, and Russian North America was substantial. People who lived through it knew the United States had arrived and had a list.
 
The issues were substantial.
When Grant sent Sheridan to Texas, he instructed General Sheridan to practice neutrality in the English and French sense of the word.
The impact on France, Britain, Canada, Mexico, and Russian North America was substantial. People who lived through it knew the United States had arrived and had a list.
Yep. For a time "tweaking the lion's tail" was a national pastime.
 
Wells's War-of-1812 total for naval vessels is misleading. Most of those 301 vessels were small, oar-powered coastal gunboats. No more than half a dozen frigates and/or sloops at sea, at any given time.

My favorite naval statistic: In 1812, the United States possessed less than half the number of naval cannon, as England had vessels of war in commission! (From Dr. David Long's bio of Capt. David Porter, "Nothing Too Daring".)
 
I always like to note the small number of steamers relative to the totals... this was, to a great extent, still really the Age of Sail!

This relates to a point we touched on a while back, that most of the "blockade runners" were engaged in coastal traffic. Shipment by water was an important part of the southern economy; cutting it off was one of the less heralded but important impacts of the blockade.
 
This relates to a point we touched on a while back, that most of the "blockade runners" were engaged in coastal traffic. Shipment by water was an important part of the southern economy; cutting it off was one of the less heralded but important impacts of the blockade.

'Zackly. The low, sleek steamers zipping from Bermuda and the Bahamas get an outsized part of the attention... let's face it, they're "sexier" ships! But on the numbers, the effect on the boring old schooners and brigs was vitally important; and, as I've noted elsewhere, helped put additional stress on the South's already-inadequate internal communications (esp. rail network).
 
Back
Top