USS Diana

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Reading from this, it's hard to tell. I believe they were saying that they'd confirmed from 1864 log book entries that the Diana had been in Greenville (in confirmation of my relatives disability claim). However, it also could be reporting the ship was in Greenville on the dates June 8-14, 1864, which seems to be in conflict with reports that the ship had been destroyed by that time. Though I wonder at the relevance of the latter interpretation in light of my relatives claim situation.

I think it's reasonably established that the gunboat Diana had been destroyed more than a year before that. But that does not exclude the possibility of another boat named Diana, likely a transport serving the Army's Quartermaster Department under charter. I can check my copy of Gibson & Gibson later, assuming someone like Andy doesn't beat me to it.

 

[Michael W.]

Great story on your ancestor! Welcome from The Hoosier State!

 

[5fish]

A note the bell from the CSS Diana is located a church: Church location?

The bell of the DIANA, however, was removed from the wreckage of the gunboat at some point and placed in the belfry of St. Mary's Episcopal Church where it remains to this day.

 

[CivilWarSon]

5fish, if I may ask, is that the St. Mary's in Florida (http://www.stmarysbelleview.org/)? I was guessing at that one since you appear to be located in central Florida. I wonder at the story at how it made it so far as to there.

 

[CivilWarSon]

I think it's reasonably established that the gunboat Diana had been destroyed more than a year before that. But that does not exclude the possibility of another boat named Diana, likely a transport serving the Army's Quartermaster Department under charter. I can check my copy of Gibson & Gibson later, assuming someone like Andy doesn't beat me to it.

Mark, I believe I'm leaning to be in agreement with you. The phrasing of the War Dept memo appears to be a series of 'militarily terse' short statements and the reference to the 1864 date could be interpreted as a 'heading' indicating the date of the report that the Diana was in Greensville. I was trying to be as faithful to the source materiel as possible, though, as it wasn't completely clear and I didn't want to read too much into it.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Gibson & Gibson's Dictionary of Transports and Combatant Vessels, Steam and Sail, Employed by the Union Army 1861-1868 gives no fewer than three Dianas on page 86 (none of the three are the one-time Confederate gunboat). The one I'm leaning towards is the steamer that was purchased by the Quartermaster Department in December 1862 and operated with the Mississippi Marine Brigade.

(If that's the one, there appears to be some coverage of her movements in Chester G. Hearn's Ellet's Brigade: The Strangest Outfit of All.)

 

[CivilWarSon]

Btw, in case it helps as an indicator of what ship he was on, Otto was transferred to the Mississippi Marine Brigade January 18, 1863. He claimed to have served aboard an ironclad and the ship he named in his pensions was the Diana. Also, having gone deaf from holding guard below a set of large guns for a period of two hours on the ship, wouldn't it be more likely it was a gunship vs. a transport??

Mark, I'll look into the book you referenced though. You very well might be onto something. Thank you!

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

The MMB was an interesting organization. It was an outgrowth of the Ellet ram fleet, and the idea was for what we could today call an amphibious combined arms force that could operate in conjunction with the riverine navy. In practice, they were rather undisciplined and became something of a headache for the commanders, but it was a fascinating concept. Hearn's book is a good 'un on the topic.

 

[5fish]

5fish, if I may ask, is that the St. Mary's in Florida (http://www.stmarysbelleview.org/)? I was guessing at that one since you appear to be located in central Florida. I wonder at the story at how it made it so far as to there.

I do not think so. I thinks the church they are referring to is in Louisiana...

 

[CivilWarSon]

I reviewed Hearn's book and it does look like the Steamship Diana's movements he describes coincide with Otto's recollection. I located the site where he claims the incident happened (Sunnyside Landing, which is on the Arkansas side of the Mississippi just west of Greenville, MS). and this corresponds pretty closely with reported movements of this ship just south of the confluence of the Mississippi with the White River. Pretty cool! Thank you so much for the reference!

 

[vikingbear]

Thanks Kaz,
I must have the wrong ship, or that is before conversion ! It does look as if there is one funnel each side of the pilot house though.

Hi John'

I have been going over the different drawings, the thing is that without my glasses I am blind as a bat, so a lot of the time have enlarged what is on the computer. For checking out the Diana the drawing was blown up by 200. The thing is that at that scale you can pick up two smoke stacks.

The closest stack has what looks like a steam pipe running up it's side. and you can pick out a slim piece of the first stack (it is a light color on the drawing) showing beyond this steam pipe(.while the second stack is all dark). You can observe this because the position of the pilothouse, has a a slight tilt. So do the stacks.

The strange part is when the drawing was smaller it did look like one stack. It was only when the drawing was scaled up that two funnels could be picked out.

So if this is the Union tinclad she had two funnels. If the other drawings are of the Conf reconstruction, she had one. In a past forum (By Andy, about a ship that in some views had one funnel, while other views had two} it was talked about how a vessel could receive damage to one stack, have it removed and because of no replacement handy, was fitted with only the remaining one. Because she was in battle before she was captured, it could have happened anytime, (One of the newspaper show her with one stack when still in Union hands). The drawing (above) showing her after capture and after reconstruction, by the south, shows only one stack. Also if you observe this smokestack in the drawing it looks out

 

[vikingbear]

cont from above.......
of place as the stack seems too narrow, for a single stack. But maybe not if there was two stacks when she was built.

GRIZZ

 

[rebelatsea]

cont from above.......
of place as the stack seems too narrow, for a single stack. But maybe not if there was two stacks when she was built.

GRIZZ

Hi Grizz,

Your post reminded me I hadn't uploaded my update drawing.

 

[vikingbear]

Hi John (& gang),
Great draft as always John.

Grizz

 

[NeilL]

Hi Grizz,

Your post reminded me I hadn't uploaded my update drawing.
View attachment 95054

John, The updated drawing appears to reflect a shorter vessel than the first drawing. Are there different measurements for length/beam, etc., for the updated one?

 

[rebelatsea]

John, The updated drawing appears to reflect a shorter vessel than the first drawing. Are there different measurements for length/beam, etc., for the updated one?

No Neill, It's an updated version of the same drawing, I haven't changed anything dimensionally.

 

[NeilL]

No Neill, It's an updated version of the same drawing, I haven't changed anything dimensionally.

Thanks, John. However, the scale in the updated one suggests a vessel of @ <150'. (sorry to be a pest).

 

[rebelatsea]

Thanks, John. However, the scale in the updated one suggests a vessel of @ <150'. (sorry to be a pest).

No problem ,been out all day, will check if I've cocked up the scale when I redrew it..

 

[rebelatsea]

No problem ,been out all day, will check if I've cocked up the scale when I redrew it..

Neill, try this !

 

[NeilL]

Neill, try this !

View attachment 95850

!!