USS Clifton

Thanks for the kind words!


Sorry, I was referring to Fort Burton at the Battle of Butte La Rose, and of her attack, with Westfield, on Port Lavaca. I actually don't recall whether Fort Esperanza was completed at that time, but she was engaged by Dan Shea's artillerymen. Both of those incidents were good results for Clifton, as she captured Fort Burton, and retreated safely after shelling Port Lavaca.


I may be mistaken on this, I'll research again where I think I found this. The fact that she was in service as a CS gunboat so relatively quickly would contradict my assertion, unless there were some fast-working carpenters in Orange!


Agreed on both.. wasn't the commander of Granite City disciplined for this?


Probably a better term, and certainly more accurate than ironclad.


Yes, she actually was covered in armor, in a sort of "belt" arrangement. See where I have it drawn, if you would extend that around the fore and aft parts of the ship, that would be the entirety of her armor. Don't want to give away too much of my archeologist partner's research (to be published in a book, eventually), but there's a period illustration of how these wooden bulwarks with iron plating were to be laid out. Lots of these plates were recovered from the Westfield wreck, a ship which was virtually identical to Clifton.




Sorry, I sometimes forget to differentiate ammunition types.

Thank you for mentioning these things, keeps me on my toes :smile:
That depends if it is a "long" 32pdr. Guns with longer bores retain the initial velocity imparted to the solid shot longer than shorter pieces. That is why John M Brooke's heavy smoothbores were "high velocity " shot guns ( and they were banded of course). the classic example of the "high velocity" smooth bore being the 68pdr 95 cwt sea service gun. closely followed by the US 64pdr - but no one recognised the latter, too hung up on Brooke and Dahlgren.
 
Several years ago I read the book "Indianola, The Mother of Western Texas"by Brownson Malsch. It think it was this book that mentions several other battles and skirmishes near by. It might have a tidbit or two on Port Lavaca. Unfortunately I don't have the book handy (it belongs to the local library) and it may possibly have been a differant book. More than one writer/historian has found the history of the Texas Gulf Coast to be a fascinating subject.
 
Could someone provide a few details of the shelling of Port Lavaca. I have not heard of this which I suppose is in Texas?
Here's the historical marker -

Photo583362.jpg
 
It would be nice to know what type of Confederate artillery drove away the Federal Task Force. Also, what damage was done to the Federal vessels. Having a Major General station there must indicate it was a source of blockade running import/export and perhaps a nice earthworks structure as well. Apparently, the Task Force did not have an infantry landing force and tried to force a surrender by Navy vessels only. Is that right? It seems it was nearly a repeat of Sabine Pass fiasco.
 
No, I don't have really any art training beyond high school. However, I was very fortunate to have the same art teacher through all four years of high school, and I still keep up with her. She consistently stressed the importance of "lightest lights and darkest darks," and placed a lot of value on drawing still-life objects under lights. Twenty years later, I still use the principles she taught.

I can still hear my H.S. art teacher Bernie Harmon clapping his hands to emphasis "chiaroscuro, people! Lights and darks!"


You'd do well reaching out to @AndyHall on this topic.
 
Just noticed that.. "Major General" is a serious typo. Shea was only a major, and I want to say he died of illness before the end of the war.

re earthworks, I doubt that they were anything nearly as substantial as Galveston or Sabine.
Was Shea even in the Confederate army? Texas State Troops supplied some of the manpower in that area , I think. Maybe Shea was a major general in that outfit.
 
Last edited:
Several months later that same commander,William B. Renshaw,who did the shelling at Port Lavaca was later killed on Jan. 1, 1863 in Galveston Bay when he set fire to his flagship.Sounds like the Westfield had run aground on a sandbar and she was blown up to avoid capture.The detonation charges on the ship apparently went off sooner than expected and mortally wounded Renshaw and some crew members.
 
Last edited:
One history of the U.S.S. Westfield states that she remained in Galveston from Oct 9, 1862 until Jan. 1, 1863 and was flagship of the U.S.Naval Force. If she remained then in Galveston it was the Clifton who did the Port Lavaca shelling. But it was a 6-ship task force and the Clifton may have been assisted by other ships in the task force.So far research has turned up the ship names Westfield, Harriet Lane,Owasco, Clifton, and the Henry Janes. What was the 6th ship?
 
Was Shea even in the Confedetate army? Texas State Troops supplied some of the manpower in that area , I think. Maybe Shea was a major general in that outfit.
That's right, Texas state troops. It's lazy, I admit, to fail to differentiate between state troops and CS forces but I do in conversation. But no, Shea was never a general in either service, he died after being promoted to lieutenant colonel.
 
Last edited:
One history of the U.S.S. Westfield states that she remained in Galveston from Oct 9, 1862 until Jan. 1, 1863 and was flagship of the U.S.Naval Force. If she remained then in Galveston it was the Clifton who did the Port Lavaca shelling.. what was the 6th ship?
I've yet to find Renshaw's report but CS reports certainly state they were attacked at Lavaca by two steamers, and Nestell was aboard Clifton at the time he drew his sketch of the bombardment. The sixth ship at Galveston was USS Corypheus. She was actually at the foot of Kuhn's Wharf, next to the 42nd Massachusetts, at the time of the battle.
 
That's right, Texas state troops. It's lazy, I admit, to fail to differentiate between state troops and CS forces but I do in conversation. But no, Shea was never a general in either service, he died after being promoted to lieutenant colonel.
I think most Texas State Troops were later recognized as Confederate soldiers. Most got veteran status anyway.One of my great great great grandfather's was "only" in the State Troops.
 
Very interesting! I know that Magruder constantly whined to Murrah for more state troops to be shifted to his command.

No disrespect to Prince John, but his letters on this matter seem a bit petulant 😄
 
Malsch's book appears to only be available from used book sellers. It is also in the UNC, U of Alabama and Emory U. libraries. Google Books only give snippet views, but it appears that the armament of the fort was 4 24-pdrs and 2 12- pdrs, all listed as siege guns.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top