(C.S.S.) David and the David-class of American Civil War Era Semi-submersible Torpedo-boats from Charleston, South Carolina

Transcription

1 John D. Littlefield, M.A., R.P.A. Ph.D. Candidate, Texas A&M University 2016 (C.S.S.) David and the David-class of American Civil War Era Semi-submersible Torpedo-boats from Charleston, South Carolina On 5 October 1863, in the first of four sorties in which the Confederate semi-submersible vessel David was deployed, the cigar-shaped torpedo-boat delivered a stealthy and shocking blow to U. S. S. New Ironsides to become the first vessel to explode a torpedo, a mine as we know it today, against the hull of an enemy warship. The element of terror conveyed by the attack was vividly articulated by Union Lieutenant-Commander John S. Barnes, A curious and novel spectacle a mighty frigate with her tremendous armament and crew of seven hundred men absolutely put to flight by four men in a little boat of less than a ton burden, whose only armament was a few pounds of powder extended on a spar ahead of her! 1 This single event has been cited as marking the beginning of the age of torpedo warfare and perhaps provided the impetus for the modern day submarine, yet little is known of the small vessel. 2 Although the torpedo strike did not sink the great warship, New Ironsides was heavily damaged. This was the closest David would come to achieving the goal for which the vessel was designed; sinking Union warships engaged in the blockade of Charleston harbor. 3 Union Rear- Admiral John A. Dahlgren fully understood the significance and importance of such a weapon as conveyed in a journal entry just days after the attack, It seems to me that nothing could have been more successful as a first effort, and it will place the torpedo among certain offensive means. 4 Delivering the torpedo to the enemy had been effective in crippling New Ironsides, reducing the formidable ship to a mere intimidating presence rather than a physical threat, yet the greater achievement of the mission lies in the wake of the event. An after-shock of terror reverberated through the Union forces; a threat of future torpedo attacks by David (or other torpedo boats). Historian Louis S. Schafer described the perceived threat, The North s response to such an innovative strategy was precisely what the South had hoped for one of apprehension and caution. 5 Although the small vessel was eponymously named for her progenitor, the vessel had earned the publicly assigned sobriquet, Little David analogously taken from the biblical story of David to the giant Goliath. Regardless of the initial successes achieved by the crew of David, the vessel was an experimental and untested weapon of war. Maneuverability, engine reliability, and protection from 1 Barnes 1869, Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion (ORN hereafter) Vol.15 (1902), For examples crediting David as predecessor of the modern torpedo and submarine, see Sass 1943, 625; Wells Beauregard 1879, 519; report of General Beauregard in the ORN Vol.15 (1902), 695. Reports of damage to New Ironsides are expectedly inconsistent. Confederates claimed the Union ship was so badly damaged that her big guns could not be fired for the duration of the time in Charleston Harbor, while Unionists claimed there was little damage. For a report of actual damage by the ship s carpenter, T. H. Bishop, see ORN Vol.15 (1902), Extract from the diary of Rear-Admiral Dahlgren, 30 November 1863, ORN Vol. 15 (1902), Schafer 1996, 3.

2 small arms and swamping, were all aspects that could have been improved with further development prior to deployment in military operations. The problems experienced by David s crews demonstrate that although the craft was a well-conceived idea, it was the product of a hurried project, prematurely pressed into service. However, the Confederate Navy employed the boat for at least six more months of service in 1864, during which at least three more sorties were attempted; sorties that have received little attention in current literature. It is unfortunate that when David is mentioned in historical accounts, it is inevitably only a passing reference to the first mission, the attack on New Ironsides. Little more has been published on the additional activities of David and no comprehensive collection of the vessel s military service has been assembled. Likewise, no effort has been made to correct various scanty and inconsistent details of the boat within the official records or historical accounts. Other David-style torpedo boats were rapidly put into production by private parties, some utilized by the Confederate Army. With a reward of $100,000 offered by local Charleston merchant, John Fraser and Company, for the sinking of New Ironsides or U. S. S. Wabash and $50,000 offered for the sinking of a monitor, came the catalyst for concentrated efforts from local Charleston businessmen that produced a small group of single purpose similarly designed vessels for combatting the Anaconda Plan Union blockade. 6 As many as 30 replicative vessels have been estimated by historians, although the actual number put into production is certainly much smaller, likely fewer than one dozen. No attempt has been made to quantify the vessels forming a class of David-style torpedo boats. This is due in part to a lack of standardized terminology for different types of torpedo-boats of the era and in part to the paucity of sources. It took years after the war s end for terminology to be standardized for the rapidly developing technology, thus causing conflation of several different types of watercraft in written records. For example, there were three Charleston torpedo boats available for operations in August 1863, yet each was a unique form: Francis Lee s Torch, a mostly submerged steam launch with a traditional style hull covered with an iron shell; the iron-hulled manually powered submarine, H. L. Hunley; and the cigar-shaped woodenhulled semi-submersible steamer, David. Often the confusion was due to writers, historians, and even military officials lacking familiarity with naval vessels and the terminology needed to distinguish them. The specifics of a particular type of torpedo boat were lost on the non-specialist as exemplified in an 1864 article published in Scientific American, They [torpedo boats] are all mentioned in the reports as long and low, and almost indistinguishable; the time of attack is generally at night, when darkness is likely to favor the operation. 7 This overly simplistic description was generally applied throughout the official records, in popular reporting of military activities, and in contemporaneous historical accounts. Further, modern historians have made little effort to clarify the description with more refined lexicon or move beyond it for more precise classification. Even vessels within the unofficial David-class could have been referred to in several different manners, including, but not limited to; a David, a torpedo boat, a torpedo steamer, a torpedo ram, or a submarine vessel. Many of these terms came to have distinct meanings after the war. As a consequence, the lack of standardized descriptions can leave readers of historical accounts 6 Theodore Wagner to General Beauregard, 13 Aug 1863, ORA Vol. 28 pt.2 (1890), Submarine Warfare, Scientific American (1864) Vol. 10, No. 18, 282.

3 questioning which vessels were David-class torpedo boats and which were merely vessels with spar mounted explosives; which also existed in many guises (i.e., rowed open-hulled boats, traditional hulled steam-powered launches, ironclad rams, etc.), and were all surface operated. Thus, quantification of the class remains problematic. Concerning records of David or like torpedo boats, for reasons of security, both during the conflict and afterwards, official records are limited. Jefferson Davis believed that no printed paper could be kept secret, often opting for verbal planning instead. 8 Meager details of the clandestinely constructed David are dispersed throughout a few of the 30 volumes of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion and in several of 70 volumes of The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies in the War of the Rebellion. However scanty, sorting through the information contained within the official records should be done through a skeptical lens, with an eye for consistency and accuracy, as descriptive material most often lacks either. Post-war documents can be equally elusive. Fearing post-war consequences for generating a weapon of war seen as uncivilized at the time, the builders and operators of David, or later sistervessels, predictably left sparse written records of their work. 9 From the earliest research done on alternative and experimental torpedo warfare, starting just after the conclusion of the war, the problem of source scarcity was recognized; a problem that still lingers. 10 However, in the course of the current research, many obscure sources have been located that have not yet been collated to recount the amazing tale of David or the clone vessels produced in the same style. David-style torpedo-boats were rare, and few, if any, existed outside of Charleston. In fact, initial research suggests that the known vessels were all owned, operated, or constructed by a very limited number of key figures, almost all of whom had some affiliation with the Southern Torpedo Company, a private venture formed shortly after the initial attack of New Ironsides by David, and a direct product of the initial success of the promising semi-submersible. Following an introductory chapter setting the stage for the necessity of a vessel like David, will be (at least) four additional chapters in which I strive to accomplish eleven discrete goals: validate the claimed builder as a reliable source via a brief biographical sketch (Chapter II); compile an accurate account of David s military service in Chapter III; collate a historiography of the vessel, address the construction of the torpedo boat, provide construction drawings of the original vessel based on highly-scrutinized source materials, and identify, in photograph, the original vessel in Chapter IV; provide an avenue for dissemination of little-known or previously unknown sources, including previously unpublished photographs, construct a historiography of the class of vessels sparked by the fire of David s first attack (including an account of the Southern Torpedo Company), quantify the number of David-class vessels produced in the Charleston region, and identify the ultimate fates of as many David-class vessels as possible with an eye toward future archaeological 8 Schiller 2011, 5. 9 David employed both torpedoes and underwater technologies, each of which were considered an engine of war not recognized by civilized nations Beauregard 1878, Barnes 1869, Preface.

4 survey (Chapter V), with an overarching goal of raising David from its relative obscurity in the historical record. One of the most comprehensive studies of Confederate Naval operations of the Civil War is J. Thomas Scharf s History of the Confederate States Navy of Scharf, a Confederate officer during the war, addresses the embargo, the Union blockade effort, Confederate blockade running, naval tactics and strategies of both sides of the conflict, and resource availability, among other topics, using war records. Although the tome has a distinctly Southern slant, his account is thorough and impressive given the era in which he was accumulating sources and writing. It remains a staple for every researcher interested in American Civil War era naval topics. Albeit a general history of the war, Scharf fleetingly recounts three of the missions in which David participated over five paragraphs. Yet, like historical accounts to follow, the story of David and the class of vessels inspired by David s potential, fall short of being properly preserved, due in great part to the obscurity of many of the sources that have more recently been brought to light and in part to the author s attempt to capture a complex history of the entire war in a single volume. Several other naval historians, most of whom were former Confederate Naval officers, also offer material that may be enlightening. In 1872, Major John G. Barnwell, a Confederate Assistant Chief of Ordinance, stationed in Charleston during the war, published an account of Confederate torpedo use in all forms; terrestrial mines, stationary and floating marine torpedoes, and sparmounted torpedoes attached to a variety of naval craft, in which he offers a few unique details of David. 12 Gabriel J. Rains, a Confederate Brigadier-General and torpedo expert of the time, wrote a manuscript modestly entitled, Torpedoes, in which he offers description of David that is so remarkably flawed in most every detail from dimensions, to material of construction, to description of the torpedo employed and method of activation, to be mistaken for that of another craft. However, Rains does provide useful anecdotal material that buttresses or amends other accounts of the vessel s military use, thus illustrating the need for sources to be highly scrutinized for accuracy. 13 U. S. Navy Lieutenant-Commander John S. Barnes 1879 volume, Submarine Warfare, is one of the earliest treatises on torpedo use and development. 14 The gist of Barnes work is torpedo development for the United States military, but the historian allotted one chapter to the advanced torpedo warfare of the Confederates and a typical cursory mention of David. All the aforementioned publications are more than a century aged and none are solely dedicated to David, or the David-class boats, as a thesis. Even for a book on torpedo development and use, passing mentions of David are the norm rather than the exception. That does not begin to change until Milton F. Perry s 1965 publication, Infernal Machines, in which the historian dedicated an entire (nine page) chapter to Davids. 15 Perry s chapter was the first step in advancing an 11 Scharf Barnwell 1872, Schiller Barnes Perry 1965.

5 understanding of David and the subsequent class of replicative vessels. However, the work is not without fault as there are notable inaccuracies that can be seen in light of more recent research, and his inclusion of more than a few vessels from outside the David-class, leaving the reader with a truncated and conflated account of the David vessel class. In 1996, Louis S. Schafer released Confederate Underwater Warfare. 16 Schafer granted eleven pages to a chapter entitled The Little David. Unfortunately, Schafer s chapter is wrought in error and excessive conjecture. Though well-intended, the work has, in hind-sight, not only perpetuated misinformation about David, but also generated inaccuracies as well. Again, this seems to be the norm rather than the exception as in 2015, Donald L. Canney put The Confederate Steam Navy into print. 17 Drawing directly from the work of Perry and Schafer as a foundation for a mere seven page chapter on torpedo boats, in which the submarine H. L. Hunley alone is granted the lion s share of text, Canney falls victim to his own misinterpretation of previous works, and repetition of error from preceding historians. In 1943 Herbert Ravenel Sass wrote one of the first accounts of David, a short article offering a colloquial history of the vessel that emphasized that details of the boat's creation are vague, often inaccurate, and filled with conflicting data. Understanding the shortcomings of historical accounts of the vessel, Sass wrote, Suppressed and minimized at the time for military reasons, these very notable achievements, bearing so directly upon events today [1943], have not yet been rescued from undeserved obscurity by historians. 18 More recent publications have shown Sass article to also be wrought in error. Almost ninety years after the attempt on New Ironsides, in January 1953, South Carolina Historical Magazine published a series of correspondence written by David Chenoweth Ebaugh, postmaster turned niter works supervisor, turned entrepreneur, turned boat builder, in which Ebaugh described the construction features and details of David to Charleston Alderman William. H. Campbell, in order to facilitate construction of a replica of the torpedo-boat for the 1893 Chicago World s Columbian Exposition. 19 Besides including details of the vessel s construction, unseen in any other sources, Ebaugh also claims to have been the progenitor of David; claims which have been topics of discussion for the entirety of the vessel s poorly understood and weakly documented history. 20 No synthesis is offered, merely a transcription of the previously unpublished correspondence. The letters have proven to be grossly overlooked by current Civil War and naval historians. They have also proven to be a valuable resource of information pertaining to the torpedo boat. Although the letters are not a dedicated publication about David, detailing the boat is the cynosure of the content. The first stand-alone publication devoted to David comes in the form of a fifty-six page pamphlet compiled and edited by Robert S. Solomon, M.D., titled Little David: the Saga of the C.S.S. David. 21 Presented to the public seventeen years after the Ebaugh letters were published, the small- 16 Schafer Canney Sass 1943, 620; reprinted in Solomon 1970, Ebaugh 1953, 32-6; reprinted in Solomon 1970, Leland 1964, 42; Sass 1954, Solomon 1970, reprinted 1976.

6 scale, locally released pamphlet contains the still little-known Ebaugh letters alongside other collected sources describing the locally made torpedo boat. Sass 1943 article, was reprinted in Solomon s booklet, and is markedly divergent from other accounts reprinted alongside it, most notable of which is the Ebaugh correspondence. However, Solomon offered no synthesis or new information about the compiled material. Instead, his goal was to spur interest in the vessel and demonstrate its importance to American naval history prior to the 1970 tricentennial celebration of the founding of Charles Towne. Solomon does offer an ephemeral and incomplete description of some of David s military use, in a manner that is common for the few historians that have chosen to include such discussion in general histories of the American Civil War, the Confederate Navy, or even early submarine warfare, leaving much to be desired for a comprehensive understanding of the small steamer. After the turn of the millennium, Gerald F. Teaster penned a short, locally-published booklet in Charleston, South Carolina and has come closest to producing a history of David, albeit remarkably brief (at only 44 pages), incomplete, and strikingly different than the data uncovered thus far in the current project. 22 Teaster was a teacher and resident of Charleston that, like Solomon, became interested in the torpedo boat prior to the 1970 Charles Towne tricentennial celebration. The booklet, The Confederate Steam Torpedo Boat CSS David, is the result of [his] involvement in designing and helping build full size replicas of both the Hunley and the David while [he] was teaching Mechanical Engineering Technology. Like his predecessors, Perry, Schafer, and others, Teaster failed to utilize the material within the letters of David Ebaugh and in doing so, propagated the much erroneous information once more. In absence of, and search for, archaeological remains of David, it is necessary to uncover, to the greatest possible extent, the entire paper trail of archival material pertaining to the misunderstood little steamer. Many records of pioneering Victorian American inventors and the fruits of their work, like David, are dispersed in local, state, and national archives. By seeking out and utilizing personal correspondences, newspaper articles, timeworn photographs, private and military diaries, telegrams, ship s logbooks, etc., the official Naval and Army records, and reports written by soldiers, civilians, and spies, can be supplemented with an impressive amount of information gleaned to facilitate the construction of an accurate historiography. Collectively, these sources are used to fulfill the goals of the proposed dissertation, perhaps even filling a looming lacuna in American naval history that deserves attention. The currently proposed manuscript will serve the purpose of recounting a nearly lost story of necessary innovation and technological creativity from pending obscurity. As a bonus the work will correct many inaccuracies and inconsistencies that continue to be propagated by researchers accepting past work without further enquiry. Finally, this work will highlight any archaeological potential for physical exploration of any extant remains of these ingenious little steamers. 22 Teaster 2005.

7 Works Cited Barnes, John S. Submarine Warfare, Offensive and Defensive. New York: Van Nostrand, Barnwell, John G. Torpedoes. Lippincott's Magazine 1 November (1872): Beauregard, Pierre G. T. Torpedo Service in the Harbor and Water Defenses of Charleston. Southern Historical Society Papers 5, no.4 (1878): Torpedo Service in Charleston Harbor. In The Annals of War. Philadelphia: Morningside, Reprint, Canney, Donald L. The Confederate Steam Navy Atglen, PA Schiffer Publishing, Ebaugh, David C. David C. Ebaugh on the Building of the David : Letters to William Campbell. The South Carolina Historical Magazine 54, no. 1 (1953): Leland, Isabella Middleton Middleton Correspondence. South Carolina Historical Magazine 65, no. 1 (1964): Perry, Milton F. Infernal Machines: The Story of Confederate Submarine and Mine Warfare. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, Sass, Herbert R. The Story of Little David. Harper's Magazine 186, no (1943): The Building of the David. South Carolina Historical Magazine 55, no. 1 (1954): Schafer, Louis S. Confederate Underwater Warfare: An Illustrated History. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., Scharf, J. Thomas. History of the Confederate States Navy from Its Organization to the Surrender of Its Last Vessel. New York: Rogers & Sherwood, Schiller, Herbert M. Confederate Torpedoes: Two Illustrated 19th Century Works with New Appendices and Photographs. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., Solomon, Robert S. Little David the Saga of the C.S.S. David: The First Successful Torpedo Boat Attack in Naval Warfare. Columbia: R. L. Bryan Publishing, Bicentennial Edition Submarine Warfare. Scientific American, 30 April 1864, 282. Teaster, Gerald F. CSS David: The Confederate Steam Torpedo Vessel. Summerville: Junior History Press, United States Department of the Navy. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. Series I, vols. 1-27; Series. II, vols Washington: Government Printing Office, United States War Department. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Series I, 1-53; Series II, 1-8; Series III, 1-5; Series IV, 1-4. Washington: Government Printing Office, Wells, William S. "Torpedo Attack on U.S. Steamer 'New Ironsides' at Charleston, S.C. October 5th, 1863." Transcript of speech delivered to the New York Commandery Military Order of the Loyal Legion of U.S., New York, 2 December 1914.