William Geoghehan's CSS Mississippi

[rebelatsea]

Revising my manuscript and musing (as you do) I decided to take yet another look at the drawing by William Geoghehan.
This is the plan repeatedly published in works by authors of repute, used by commercial model companies and at least two large scale models in museums.
The original drawing has a hull beam of 44ft, and a width overall of 58ft. I have corrected this to show the hull beam as 50ft , the length between parallels 260ft, giving the ship a width overall of 67ft, now corresponding to the dimensions in the Tifts, and Acting Constructor Pierce correspondance and evidence at the enquiry into her loss.

However the ship's appearance only superficially resembles vessel described by the gentlemen who built her.
How did Geoghehan, usually so accurate, get the appearance so wrong, as he must have had the same material available to anyone that I have used ?
His vessel is very impressive, but it's not CSS Mississippi.
My question is - and I don't want to start hares running, if it's not CSS Mississippi, what is it ? The casemate is rectangular,the quarterdeck straight, has a transon stern, and the stacks are oval athwartships.(not a product of my alterations I removed all centreline features before widening the plan view and bow and stern elevations.)

 

[rhettbutler1865]

I'm of all-English ancestry--we do love our ships, don't we? I admire your understanding of, and ability to craft these ships!

 

[Dilandu]

Hm, as i recall, the "Mississippi" were completely redesigned in early stage of building. Maybe, there was more than one redesign by Tift? As i recall, their contract was... extremely frivolous, if i may use this words.

 

[Mad Hungarian]

I wonder... Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there a dispute over who had the "right" to build Mississippi and Louisiana? Could it be that this "other" ship is an alternative proposal for what became Louisiana?

Or, going further afield with the Florida connection, and this is tenuous, could this be the mysterious "Pensacola ironclad"?

 

[TinCan]

rebelatsea,

Am I seeing this right? Did this thing have triple screws?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Yup, triple screws.... which became the Achilles' heel of the design, because the center shaft was beyond the capability of the Confederacy to produce. IIRC, they stuck two existing shafts together, but even then it had to be done in Richmond, and never got to New Orleans.

 

[rebelatsea]

Hm, as i recall, the "Mississippi" were completely redesigned in early stage of building. Maybe, there was more than one redesign by Tift? As i recall, their contract was... extremely frivolous, if i may use this words.

It was. To briefly summarize. John L Porter, given the job of producing drawings inevitably added knuckles and a slope to what was a basically conventional ironclad at Secretary Mallory's insistence. Ironically ,when Asa Tift wrote him and asked permission to change the angle to 30 degrees, Mallory didn't reply so they did it anyway. The Tifts went along with all this (if it had been my ship being built with my money I might have been a bit miffed !). Acting Constructor Pierce, E.M.Ivens and Engineer James H Warner were responsible for changes to the power plant and to the shape of the casemate and hull. Try as I might I cannot find who added the third propellor, I suspect it was Porter. There were two sets of uptakes but only one chimney referred to in the correspondence and evidence.
I don't think the word you are looking for is "frivolous", "open" is more descriptive.
My puzzle is why William Geoghehan produced that plan, when he must have had the same references I used ,to produce a very different vessel.
With what are quite obviously 4 pivot guns in the corners of the casemate, making better use of the available space, a simplified quarterdeck shape, and two oval stacks, did he I wonder actually draw the second vessel with improvements , proposed but never started ? Peirce did draw up the plans for the two smaller vessels ,had he also drawn the plans if only preliminary for the second Mississippi for all which ships allegedly the plans don't exist ?

Incidentally I tried contacting the Smithsonian, for whom Geoghehan worked, and, disappointingly got no response whatsoever.

 

[rebelatsea]

I wonder... Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there a dispute over who had the "right" to build Mississippi and Louisiana? Could it be that this "other" ship is an alternative proposal for what became Louisiana?

Or, going further afield with the Florida connection, and this is tenuous, could this be the mysterious "Pensacola ironclad"?

Alex , no the Mississippi and Louisiana were quite separate contracts. The common denominator was Acting Constructor Pierce who was supposed to oversee Louisiana, was appointed by Mallory to the Tifts and actually spent all his time on the Mississippi.
You are right in that there were two designs for Louisiana, as she was altered before launch having been found drastically overweight. There is a thread on this forum.

 

[rebelatsea]

I don't know what to make of the "Pensacola ironclad" and have left it out of my manuscript.

 

[Mad Hungarian]

Thank you for clarification, John. Am I at least correct in remembering that there were disputes over labor between the two ships, and that it was eventually agreed that Louisiana would be given priority, followed by Mississippi?

 

[Mad Hungarian]

Incidentally, I wouldn't take it too hard not getting a response from the Smithsonian. When I was writing my Thesis, I discovered that they had some Mithraic artifacts in their collection, and my advisor encouraged me to write to them with questions about a piece identified in one of my sources. I wrote to them, sent them emails, even called them. Never got so much as a response. Bureaucracy at its finest.

 

[Dilandu]

It was. To briefly summarize. John L Porter, given the job of producing drawings inevitably added knuckles and a slope to what was a basically conventional ironclad at Secretary Mallory's insistence. Ironically ,when Asa Tift wrote him and asked permission to change the angle to 30 degrees, Mallory didn't reply so they did it anyway. The Tifts went along with all this (if it had been my ship being built with my money I might have been a bit miffed !). Acting Constructor Pierce, E.M.Ivens and Engineer James H Warner were responsible for changes to the power plant and to the shape of the casemate and hull.

Reading all this i almost started to wonder; on which side were the Tift's actually? Seem that they took a lot of materials and resources, claimed that their design would be better sutied for inexperienced workers... and produce actually nothing. Moreover, seems like only the accident prevented her from becoming USS "Mississippi" (hm, but this name was already taken).

 

[Mad Hungarian]

I have heard it claimed that they were not terribly keen on the politics of Secession; that said, they were first and foremost, businessmen, and American Navy Departments in the nineteenth century were notoriously corrupt, despite the best efforts of Mallory (whom, I believe, probably had a lot of personal integrity). The Tifts did take part in completing other ironclads (Atlanta, for instance) so I'm not sure that any political feelings they may have had actually interfered with making a few bucks, and leeching as much money as they could out of their Key West connection to Secretary Mallory.

It's the same thing with Ericsson, to a point. I often find the man infuriating. He did a great deal of good for the Navy, but he also interfered with a number of highly important programs, reaching a point where he could quite literally do no wrong. Gideon Welles may also have been a "reformer," but he was more than willing to line his pockets and those of his friends when the opportunity presented itself.

 

[Mad Hungarian]

You raise an interesting question, though. If the Union had captured her intact and kept her in service, I wonder what name they would have given her?

 

[Dilandu]

You raise an interesting question, though. If the Union had captured her intact and kept her in service, I wonder what name they would have given her?

Hm. They would have a problem, certanly; the old sidewheeler was still here. Probably, she would became USS "New Orlean"? Yes, there was this old uncompleted ship-of-the-line "New Orlean" still on Great Lakes... but the old ship weren't commissioned and could be renamed.

Also, the other possible name is USS "Varuna", in honour of previous "Varuna", sunk during the battle of 24 april.

The CSS "Mississippi", if taken, definitely worth attention of the Union Navy. Her hull was mostly complete, her armor at least delivered... with the Union logistic, it would probably take no more than 60-90 days to put her in comission.

 

[rebelatsea]

Actually the Tift brothers spent a whole lot of their own money on the Missisippi, if they had relied on the treasury they would still have been cutting trees down in April 1865

Thank you for clarification, John. Am I at least correct in remembering that there were disputes over labor between the two ships, and that it was eventually agreed that Louisiana would be given priority, followed by Mississippi?

As it happened it was the wrong decision and everyone working on the Mississippi knew it, Asa Tift actually wrote Mallory about it. unfortunately John Hughes had an awful lot of power and influence in the right places as he owned and operated several floating docks and dockyards in New Orleans and Algiers. Given his experience pre war in shipbuilding the design of Louisiana was an extraordinary aberation, for which Constructor Pierce must take some of the blame, although the rebuild was at his instruction via Secretary Mallory apparently.
We don't actually know who designed the Louisiana in the first place, possibly one of Hughes shipyard staff. There are at least two threads in the naval forum on her.

Incidentally, I wouldn't take it too hard not getting a response from the Smithsonian. When I was writing my Thesis, I discovered that they had some Mithraic artifacts in their collection, and my advisor encouraged me to write to them with questions about a piece identified in one of my sources. I wrote to them, sent them emails, even called them. Never got so much as a response. Bureaucracy at its finest.

I didn't, My reaction was something like " if they can't be bothered to reply to a civil enquiry from a genuine researcher, it reflects badly on a world renowned institution - s----d 'em."

 

[rebelatsea]

Reading between the lines ,there was an awful lot of interference, attempted or successful from outside on both vessels.
On balance I think the Mississippi "team" were correct to carry on as they did developing Porters drawings. However I would rather they had been told to go away and build the ship as presented in the first place , as was Hughes with his model.
They may well have got her into service and begun construction of the second one.

I'm not an expert on the USN but I do know the same situation prevailed in the RN for years, it being lumbered with vessels that were politically expedient at the time, rather than what they wanted, and this interference continued into WWI.
Just as well it didn't carry on into WWII !

 

[Dilandu]

I'm not an expert on the USN but I do know the same situation prevailed in the RN for years, it being lumbered with vessels that were politically expedient at the time, rather than what they wanted, and this interference continued into WWI.
Just as well it didn't carry on into WWII !

I'm afraid, the same problem is for russian navy... Especially during USSR...

 

[Mad Hungarian]

"There are at least two threads in the naval forum on her."

Good stuff, too. I saw your challenge to redesign the Louisiana and make her practical. Wonderful idea!

It still happens in the USN. We had a debacle a few years ago regarding command ships that the Navy did -not- want, but which were being built in a yard under the control of a powerful Alabama Senator. He insisted that the ships be built, despite the Navy saying, "no, we don't want these, they don't meet our needs, etc." And so they were.

A related matter occurred with USS Iowa. She was essentially illegally kept on the West Coast for years because of the interference of legislators, rather than the needs and desires of the Navy.

 

[vikingbear]

Reading between the lines ,there was an awful lot of interference, attempted or successful from outside on both vessels.
On balance I think the Mississippi "team" were correct to carry on as they did developing Porters drawings. However I would rather they had been told to go away and build the ship as presented in the first place , as was Hughes with his model.
They may well have got her into service and begun construction of the second one.

I'm not an expert on the USN but I do know the same situation prevailed in the RN for years, it being lumbered with vessels that were politically expedient at the time, rather than what they wanted, and this interference continued into WWI.
Just as well it didn't carry on into WWII !

Hi John,

Was just thinking............is is possible that this is an plan of the second planned"improved" version ?

GRIZZ