 sj |
||
|
||
The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info?
|
|
|
Subject: The Confederate Sub Hunley, any info? From: Rick Fielding Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:03 PM Thanks to those who've made the "Curious Civil War Song" thread so interesting. The HUNLEY. What an amazing (and eerie) story! Does anyone have any more info on it, or can you point me in a direction where I can find drawings, details etc. The motivation of the crew must have been amazing. The TV news keeps referring to a "suicide" mission. Did the crew know that at the beginning? Were they REALLY all five foot two inches? Fascinating. Thanks. Rick Click for related thread |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: SeanM Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:05 PM Didn't they just locate the wreckage and bring it up? M |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Naemanson Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:05 PM Apparently the Hunley killed two crews just in testing! And the last crew still went on board! It says something about how people can be willing to sacrifice everything for their cause. An important lesson. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:08 PM The Hunley used an exploding device mounted to a ram on the bow. The idea was to ram a Union ship broadside,detonate the bomb,and then reverse the ram shaft out of the enemy hull. When the Hunley struck its prey, the ram could not be dislodged, and both ships went down together. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Bert Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:16 PM Rick, Here ya go Bert |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: MMario Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:16 PM not so... The wreck of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley was discovered early in May, 1995, off Sullivan's Island, South Carolina. The 40-foot Hunley sank in the aftermath of her maiden attack on February 17, 1864, after ramming the Union warship USS Housatonic with a harpoon torpedo mounted on an iron shaft extending from the bow. All nine men aboard the Hunley were lost. The wreck of the Hunley is considered priceless because of its historic significance--it was one of the first submarines, and the first to be used successfully in warfare. Documents indicate that the Hunley was propelled by a human powered direct-drive shaft extending along the length of the vessel. The harpoon torpedo mounted on the bow was designed to be driven into the wooden hull of opposing ships, after which the Hunley would back off and detonate the charge from a distance using a lanyard. Survivors from the Housatonic, which sank in minutes, saw these events occur, confirming the success of the Hunley's attack. Their last sight of the Hunley was as she reversed her course and returned towards Charleston Harbor. The Hunley never arrived. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Mbo Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:41 PM The first time I heard about the Hunley was in 1991 when I was 12, and we visited the South Carolina State Musuem in Columbia. The had the whole story and a life-sized replica of the sub. Very interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:12 PM Gee, I hate getting here late. That's a great site Bert!!! Rick, you got some good info fast......The only thing I'd add is that the Turner production of the story on TV was truly pathetic. There was enough drama and heroism and cowardice and suspense in the real story without adding in the typical love interests and complete fabrications. If you (like Meebo and I) get a chance to see the memorial display in SC, do it. Like so many other things from that time period I was overcome by the thought that this was a different breed of man......same feeling I get when I think of the forced marches prior to Chickamauga, or a lot of other CW events. The Hunley was TINY!!!! I mean REALLY TINY!!! And it looks like an iron coffin to begin with. Guys our size couldn't have fit through the hatch!!! Engineering-wise it was primitive at best and I think the men who manned her must have had small bodies and huge nuts. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: SeanM Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:33 PM OK... I unfortunately didn't have time to get to the article, but I do recall seeing something about "Civil war era sub wreckage discovered". Anyone else hear anything about this, or is this Hunley related? Or have the voices in my head gone to print? It was within the last week... M |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Mrrzy Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:43 PM I am reminded, oddly enough, of a song, not of a Star Trek episode! Anybody know The Bold Fenian Ram? Will check the Db and come back. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: jeffp Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:44 PM Sean, your surmise is correct. The Hunley was discovered about five years ago by a team funded by author Clive Cussler. It was raised yesterday and will be stabilized and eventually put on display. The crew, apparently still on board, will be buried with honors in the same cemetary that contains the remains of the first two crews. jeffp |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Whistle Stop Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:51 PM Sean, I believe that this week's story is that the Hunley has been salvaged (brought to the surface); it was discovered in 1995, but not salvaged until this week. I understand that they intend to restore it and put it on display. From the news account I heard, it is believed to be in remarkably good shape; apparently it was silted over shortly after it sank, which effectively mummified it. The folks who are doing this think that the contents of the sub, as well as the sub itself, may be very well preserved -- they hope to find leather boots, clothing, possibly even papers (orders, etc.), which will be very interesting to the historians. And, of course, if they find all those things they will also find nine dead bodies (136 years old; anyone want that job?). They plan suitable, quasi-military burials in that event. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Mbo Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:51 PM Mrrz...think Mad Matt Decker. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Kim C Date: 09 Aug 00 - 02:58 PM The search engine Excite had a whole news page on the Hunley with photos, stories, etc. As for them all being 5'2", I imagine that shorter men were chosen to go aboard submarines because the quarters were very small. But the old thing about "people were so much shorter then" is not entirely true..... the documented average height of soldiers in the Union army was 5'8" and some change. (I don't suspect Confederate army records are any different.) Maybe we're up to an average of 5'10" now, or something like that. I wish I could have been there when they brought it up. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Mrrzy Date: 09 Aug 00 - 03:04 PM Sorry, GREAT Fenian Ram. Not in the Trad. Here's what I remember of it; all proper nouns are wild guesses, and some of the lines might not be in their proper verses... but here goes: The Great Fenian Ram (Wolfe Tones) In the town of Liscannor, in the County of Clare Anybody know for whom the Holland Tunnel was named? Where's Dave, The Ancient Mariner? Is anything in this song actually true? Apparently he wasn't the FIRST, not if the Civil War had one, right? |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Mrrzy Date: 09 Aug 00 - 03:06 PM Thanks, Mbo, I'll look. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Bert Date: 09 Aug 00 - 03:12 PM The whole matter of size is somewhat overrated (no jokes please). When I first left school I served an apprenticeship as a boilermaker at a company which made road tankers. You know those things that carry gasoline, or oil, or chemicals. Many of them were a lot smaller than the Hunley but we could work inside them easily (and I'm 6'-2"), even the little ones that deliver your fuel oil. The smallest manholes were elliptical and were 16" by 12". No one had any problems getting in or out of the tanks. Not to say that those Hunley guys weren't brave, because they were. Just that there was a reasonable amount of room inside. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Gervase Date: 09 Aug 00 - 03:14 PM There's also some fascinating information and pictures at www.hunley.org, the official site for the recovery. It's an intriguing and chilling tale - I've always had a terror of subs, and think that any submariner (even in a modern tin fish) is bloody brave and probably bonkers. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Mrrzy Date: 09 Aug 00 - 03:49 PM And if you don't agree, read Ice Station Zebra. Chilling tale. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Aug 00 - 04:07 PM Bert, I hate to disagree, but I've been around the tankers you refer to and they are larger than the Hunley. The size is far more confining. And bro, ain't no way I fit thru a 16x12 hatch!!!(:<)) My comments on the "different breed" I suppose just have to do with the fact that these people grew up in hardier and harder times. Drive out of Chattanooga to Nashville and look at the terrain, especially between Monteagle and Chattanooga. The Union army covered that ground in the late winter and early spring---lots of rain, lots of mud. Wool uniforms and blankets soaked through and unable to dry out. Temps in the 30's to the 70's that time of year with VERY variable weather. I don't even want to think about it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Bert Date: 09 Aug 00 - 04:35 PM Spaw, you LOVE to disagree;-) Road tankers in England are generally smaller than those over here maximum size allowed on the roads then was 5000 gallons. And tankers have gotten larger over the years. Some of the water tanks were very small, about 800 gallons. They were about 3'-6" high. (multiply by 5/4 to get US gallons). Then they were split into compartments inside, some not more that 2 feet wide. There's kindof a trick to getting through the small manholes. You put one arm in, then your head then you slide your other shoulder through. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: GUEST,winterhorse290 Date: 09 Aug 00 - 08:34 PM it may have been found, but the real question is"should it have been disturded" what would people think if someone raised the arizona or the titanic. brave men died on that boat. they should have been allowed to rest in peace! guess there will be a big stink when those brave sailors are buried in confederate flag draped coffins. sorry, it was a machine of war way ahead of it,s time. to think that just fourty years later, the germans had built a working sudmarine useing ideas from the confederate navy. those were truly the days of iron men , on both sides. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: ddw Date: 09 Aug 00 - 09:56 PM Rick, It may take a couple of days before I can get time to hunt it down, but I have a fair amount of info on the Hunley in some of my civil war books at home. Just relying on my (often faulty) memory, I think the Hunley was actually the second confederate sub. The first, designed by the Hunley the second one was named after, sank in trials with the designer on board. Also, my recollection is that both "boats" were made from converted locomotive or industrial boilers. I'm sure I have some sketches of the plans in one of the books. I'll see what I can dig out. david |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Rick Fielding Date: 09 Aug 00 - 09:57 PM Interesting point winterhorse. I doubt if any sunken ship (or indian graveyard etc.) is ever going to be left alone as long as the public is curious and someone can make money on it. You're right about the potential controversy about the re-burial of those brave sailors. My guess is that there won't be a Confederate flag on the coffins. And that there will be a lotta flack from all sides! I guess my fascination with this is connected to my absolute fear of small confined spaces. Hoo boy, I wouldn't have been one of those volunteers! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Mbo Date: 09 Aug 00 - 10:07 PM There was only one Hunley, and it was also known as The Fish. After sinking and killing it's crew AND the Hunley, the inventor, in an unsuccessful run, (where it was to drag a torpedo behind it, dive under the enemy ship, release the tow rope on the torpedo, which would hit the ship with the sub reemerged on the other side of the ship) it was raised from Charleston harbor, the dead crew and inventor receiving military funerals with all honours. It was refit and rearmed with the explosive charge on the pole boom. It was the 2nd attempt, again the U.S.S Housatonic which was the final demise of the Hunley. The Housatonic was sunk after the crewmen could not lower their cannon low enough to shoot at the sub. All of the Union crew escaped safely to another Union ship, the Canadiagua. Unfortunetly, the Hunley crew were not so lucky. The Hunley sunk again, thus killing it's crew a second time. And it's still there now, until the raise it up here in the near future, and this crew will receive honarable military funerals just as the first lost crew deserved. --Matt |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Aug 00 - 10:40 PM Excellent job Meebs......I believe it sank one other time during trials also, between the two attacks. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Mbo Date: 09 Aug 00 - 10:56 PM BTW the first time it sunk, killing the crew and Hunley himself, the cause was that the bilge pumps gave out. I did a 3-year extensive study on the Civil War when I was 11-14 years old. That's how I know all this stuff. I have more reference books about the Civil War than anything else too! |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Aug 00 - 11:05 PM Actually I was wrong....not too unusual......The Hunley had an accident prior to killing Hunley....buoyancy problem while moored. Sorry. After I looked that up, I had another look at Bert's site which I had looked at mainly for the drawings, and the story is there also. I'm so glad I have my stuppidity to fall back on. Geeziz........ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Aug 00 - 11:14 PM Dammit all!!!!!!! What I keep meaning to ask here is, are there any songs about the Hunley, especially from the CW/post-CW period? I mean a song about whizz made their hit parade......anything on the Hunley? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: rangeroger Date: 09 Aug 00 - 11:19 PM The mention earlier of Clive Cussler is right on.While he is best known for his Dirk Pitt adventure novels, the reason he writes is to finance his explorations,mostly marine but also landbound. He has a book out(CRS strikes. I can't remember the title) where a chapter is devoted to his search for and subsequent discovery of the Hunley. He includes quite a bit of historical fact along with a fanciful story of the Hunley. Interesting reading,it includes his other searches and discoveries, some of which will amaze you. rr |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: SeanM Date: 09 Aug 00 - 11:22 PM I found another article in the LA times (here until the Times removes it) about the Hunley's raising. There was a picture in the paper, but unfortunately not on the website. M |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:17 AM Isn't there a Confederate submarine preserved at Jackson Square in New Orleans? I believe there were two submarines. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Greg F. Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:22 PM Hmmm... I'm sort of surprised they let this sort of grave desecration proceed. Amazing what folks will do in pursuit of the almighty tourist dollar! Dunno why they want to bury the bodies- with those skeletons on display the museum would have a REAL attraction- nothing like dead bodies to draw a crowd. These are the grandfathers & great-grandfathers of folks that are still allive, for chrissakes, not some ancient civilization! In most states it is a crime to exhume a body without the consent of the next of kin. Think if I was a resident of South Carolina I'd file a class action suit. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Irish sergeant Date: 10 Aug 00 - 05:21 PM Don't count on it not happening. I would like to make a few points. First, the crew should be buried under the flag they served under. Until the preservation crew takes a good look at the Hunley, we won't know why it sunk. We may never know but the bilge pumps would be the place I would start at if I wanted to find out why she sunk. I don't buy the five foot two story. I'm five-eight and when I was still in the Navy weighed 165-170 lbs. I was able to fit in a 12"x16" fuel cell access with no problem with full respiratory and protective gear on. The boys in the Hunley might have been a little uncomfortable but they would have had no problem fitting being of average height which as some one pointed out was 5'8" tall and approximately 140 lbs. Kindest reguards, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Naemanson Date: 10 Aug 00 - 05:46 PM It may not have been that they needed to be 5'2" tall to fit into the sub. It might be that they needed to be that size to fit into the crankshaft. Longer legs and torsos might have gotten in the way of the crank. we'll only know when they get the bodies out. And that is only one reason they need to exhume and examine the bodies. There are a lot of unanswered questions and only a complete examination of all the evidence can start to answer them. Also, as to why we are disturbing the bodies. Would they have been distrubed if the Confederate Navy had the techniques and equipment to raise the sub in the first place? The first crew was "disturbed" and given full military burial. Men lost in Viet Nam are "disturbed" all the time to be given proper military burial. The passage of time doesn't change the fact that these were brave men who sacrificed their lives for the cause they believed in. They should be honored as such. Of course, there will be people who will come down on both sides of the line on the use fo the confederate flag and honoring the supporters of slavery etc. We need to tune that out as static and focus on what they did and how they should be treated. We honor German dead from WWII. Should we not honor Southern dead too? |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Irish sergeant Date: 10 Aug 00 - 08:00 PM Point well taken, Naemanson! Shall we just ignore these men who bravely died for a cause even if it be one we don't agree with? I had heard the rumour about being 5'2" but again, I have never seen documentary evidence to support it and let's face it, no war is written about so much as the Civil War and we're still learning about it! I seriously doubt a detail like that would escape the perusal of quite a few sharp eyed historians out there! It may be the truth but again as you so rightly point out, we won't know until they remove the remains to study and or inter them. Have a very good night and kindest reguards, Neil |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Wincing Devil Date: 10 Aug 00 - 08:29 PM I aggree with Greg F., It's grave robbing! It's a shame that wrecks like the Hunley and the Titanic are being desecrated like this.
Navy Hymn (Submariner's verse) "Lord God, our power evermore,
|
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: rangeroger Date: 10 Aug 00 - 08:44 PM Went to the library today and checked out the Clive Cussler book "The Sea Hunters." Simon and Schuster 1996. LEJ, Cussler says there were 3 submarines. The first was called the Pioneer and was designed by James McClintock with backing by Horace Hunley and Baxter Watson.When Farragut captured New Orleans, Hunley ordered the Pioneer scuttled to keep her out of Union hands. The second one was Pioneer II, or also American Diver.She sank in Mobile Bay during a squall. Hunley then built the 3rd one with McClintock as advisor. Te Confederate Navy commandeered th vessel and promptly sank it, killing 5. It was recovered and then sank again. killing Hunley and 7 others. It was once more recovered, and then went on to sink the USS Housatonic. There was a story that went around New Orleans that " the Hunley would sink at a moment's notice and sometimes without it." rr |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Aug 00 - 08:53 PM Thanks rr for the extra research. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: ddw Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:46 AM Rick — checked my books last night and found info that pretty closely resembled what rangeroger posted above. I also found some sketches, but there is little that can't be described almost as vividly as a picture would show it. The Hunley (according to all my souces) was 25 feet long, not 40 as mentioned in several earlier posts. It was made from a boiler that was cut lengthwise, fitted with tapered ends and welded back together. There were two small hatch/conning towers (about eight inches high), one at each end, from which the captain could see upward and forward through glass plates. A ballast bar was fitted on the bottom that could be released by unscrewing bolts from inside and there were ballast tanks fitted on the sides. These could be flooded by simply opening seacocks and purged by hand pumps inside the sub. Flooding the ballast tanks would take the Hunley just a few inches below the surface, then the diving planes were used to take it deeper or bring it back up — which, of course, required forward motion to make them operate. There was a snorkle tube to bring in air while they were running shallow enough. At the rear, mounted in front of the rudder and enclosed by an iron ring, was the propeller attached to a metal rod that was bent to resemble a skinny version of a car's crankshaft. With the full complement of crew working it could make just under four knots. There was one other little point where my most trusted source differed with Rangeroger's. Burke Davis, in his book The Civil War: Strange & Fascinating Facts, says the Hunley was never a commissioned Confederate Navy ship. Hunley and the others involved were privateers who had license to sink union warships as prizes with the adjunct benefit of helping P.G.T. Beauregard break the blockade of Charleston Harbor. Some of her crews were volunteers from the CSA army and navy, but I believe some were civilians. Her commander when she went down was Lieutenant John Payne, an infantry officer. david
|
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Sourdough Date: 11 Aug 00 - 01:19 AM I was lucky enough to be a part of the expedition looking for the Hunley. It was a great exerience for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was Clive Cussler. For those of you that think that Clive Cussler went looking the Hunley for money, or even glory, I can tell you that you are wrong. Clive has a feeling about what he calls, "ships of destiny", ships that played a critical role at a climactic historical moment. He also has a great appreciation for bravery. Clive transmitted that to the sidescan sonar operators, to the divers and to all the ancillary personnel on the expedition. There were people there who had been diving on the Atocha. I remember one guy with a piece of eight he had brought up. However, these guys were diving without hope of treasure. What they wanted was a personal relationship with this remarkable vessel and the incredibly brave men who crewed her. Each time she sunk, she was raised up, the dead removed and they continued learning how to navigate in three dimensions. Remember, Man had only travelled in a two dimensional world before the Hunley. Now they had to deal with things such as neutral buoyancy, pitch, yaw, and do it all essentially blind. One man, the Lietenant who was the commanding officer of the Hunley actually survived a sinking that killed most of the crew. He immediately whent back to apply what they had learned. Someone earlier mentioned the concern of disturbing the dead. THe NUMA folks believed, and I with them, that disturing was not the right word, "recovering and honoring" was far more accurate. I remember one evening sitting around with the divers and the subject of diving on a German submarine of the Carolina Coast came up. I thad been sunk by aircraft in 1943 or so but had only recently been located by divers. People were going down into the hull and taking out souvenirs and even pieces of the skeletons. Badges, equipment, and even a skull had shown up in a at least one dive shop. The disgust these NUMA people had for the kind of vulture who would pick over the remains of a ship and crew for personal reasons was complete. I have no doubt that they would never be a part of something that was the slightest bit like that. Scientists will learn a lot from the Hunley but the real lesson will be learned by all of those people who visit the raised vessel, seeing with their own eyes the boat that changed the history of the world. Clive Cussler could have taken the money he made on "Raise the Titanic" (the movie rights were very valuable) and bought all the toys he had ever wanted. Instead, he put the money into the NUMA Foundation. The first effort was to find The Bonhomme Richard lost of Scarborough Head. John Paul Jones had been raiding the English Coast to bring the reality of the American colonies rebellion to Great Britain. When his ship met a Royal Navy warship, the two started firing. THe RIchard was pounded badly, far worse than the English captain knew. When the English trumpeted through the powder smoke, "Do you wish to surrender?", Jones answered, "I have not yet begun to fight". The British, soon surrendered not knowing that the Richard had been hulled and was sinking. Jones transferred his crew to his prize and watched his own ship drift away and then sink. The story had affected Clive and he was determined to find the ship, hopefully in time for the Bicentennial. He put his own money into the search and he pestered the Navy until they supplied him with great search equipment. Meanwhile, he and others he had caught up in his enthusiasm pored over logs, letters and diaries. I am writing all of this to make it clear that the Hunley search was run with great deal of respect for her crew. The worst you can say about Clive and those around him is that they are selfish because they are doing something they love. Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: rangeroger Date: 11 Aug 00 - 02:06 AM Wow. Sourdough, I'm really impressed.I had been a Dirk Pitt fan for some time, so when I read "The Sea Hunters" a couple of years ago I was doubly taken with Clive Cussler. I got that feeling about him that you described so aptly. I'm going to reread the book now that I have it again. Is your picture in it? rr |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: catspaw49 Date: 11 Aug 00 - 02:10 AM Excellent info David.......and 'Dough, I am always impressed with the depth of your experiences....no pun intended! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler Date: 11 Aug 00 - 04:09 AM Fascinating thread. When I saw this story in the press I thought( knowing you interest in Civil War and wrecks etc) Ibet there'll be discussion on the Mudcat. Now if Aine (damn, fada-less)makes it a subject for a song challenge it might qualify as a musical thread. I've read a lot of Clive Cussler, usually while on holiday, and I'd heard of his interest.. Thanks, guys, for all the information. RtS (now a slightly less ignorant old git) |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Naemanson Date: 11 Aug 00 - 05:44 AM Thanks Sourdough, No wonder I enjoy this site! But what was the outcome on the Bonhome Richard? Did he find it? Is he still looking? |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 11 Aug 00 - 08:34 AM Let's say that my father, a much decorated veteran of WWII & heroically killed in action, was buried in the only known example of the Ace Coffin Company's Model 209- a revolutionary coffin design of its time. Drawings, blueprints, and detailed written descriptions of the coffin by those who built it exist. The same documentation is available for the Model 208 that preceeded it. But there are rumors that the 209 did not allow its occupants to 'rest in eternal comfort' as advertised. The International Society for the History of Necrology (a listed charitable organization: they are all, all, honourable men) decides the "Mystery of the 209" and the questions about its design flaws need to be answered. The Society also wants to add this coffin to their museum exhibit "The Pine Box Comes of Age". They are supported in this by a large group of individuals who inexplicably enjoy playing dress-up in 1940's clothing and pretending to be Undertakers and Morticians of the WWII period- as long as they don't have to deal with real dead bodies, embalming fluid, etc. and only do it on weekends. Therefore, it is appropriate for this Association to dig Dad up, chuck him out of the Model 209, rebury him (with honors, of course), etc. etc?? Wonder how many people would welcome this kind of treatment of their parents............ |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: MMario Date: 11 Aug 00 - 09:34 AM the above is a very different situation then reverent and respectable treatment of bodies lost during an engagement during war. These are NOT loved ones who have been laid to rest under the aegis of ANY religion. The situation with the Hunley is more akin to the discovery of a body at the bottom of a well, or in a bricked up room, which is then given (what most would call) "decent burial" . |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Rick Fielding Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:20 PM This has been so interesting. I haven't had much luck with a couple of the "old time music threads" I've started recently (as in getting info that I didn't already have) but when it comes to historically fascinating situations, Mudcat is great. Thanks, I've learned a lot. Also, I apologise for the quip about "money to be made" regarding the motivation in raising the ship. Obviously the motivation runs through a very large gamut. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Aug 00 - 12:25 PM Thanks to all for the great info on the Hunley. Those men should indeed be given full military honors and their coffins draped with the Confederate flag. I say this as a Canadian. All soldiers of all armies deserve the same honor. They all believed they were defending their homes, their families, and their nation. Why else would they risk their lives in a floating coffin? I'm sure, however, there will be a whole lot of clever and highly paid lawyers who think otherwise, and they'll raise sheer bloody hell over it. Wait and see. A pox on all of them. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Naemanson Date: 11 Aug 00 - 01:24 PM Little Hawk, I agree with you and I'm a Yank! Rick, you can rest assured that there is a sleazy lawyer or politician somewhere plotting to make money on this. It just isn't the crew who raised her and are examining her. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Whistle Stop Date: 11 Aug 00 - 02:33 PM Little Hawk, I respectfully disagree. I hate to make so obvious a point, but the men who died on the Hunley are... how shall I put it?... DEAD! They won't know or care whether there are flags on their coffins. As most people recognize, funerals are for the living. The North won the war, slavery was abolished, and there are a lot of folks who don't consider it appropriate to honor the symbol of a racist past (particularly since there are still groups around that would love to resurrect it), thereby dishonoring the brave men who fought on the side of Union and against slavery. It should be possible to have an appropriate memorial for these men without incorporating the discredited symbols of a government founded primarily to perpetuate an economic system based on slavery. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Aug 00 - 02:51 PM I understand your concerns, Whistle Stop... I would still be inclined to honor all those who fell, regardless of what side they were on. As for people being dead, I don't believe anyone dies. They just leave the body behind, that's all. If these men were given a funeral now, I believe their spirits would most likely stop by to have a good look and might feel somewhat gratified at having received mention for their courageous efforts in the worldly adventure story. I do not in any way support slavery or racism. To honor the fallen of one side in no way dishonors the fallen of the other side. Not ever. Most people are easily fooled by media and government propaganda and social custom. The southerners who fought for the Confederacy were just as well-intentioned in a general sense as soldiers of any other cause. In their minds they were fighting for their homes, their wives, their children, their livelihood, their sovereignty, and their entire way of life. Were they wrong to support slavery? Yes. Like I said, people are easily fooled by common propaganda. I anticipate that there will be much controversy raised over this issue, however, and that is most unfortunate. Political correctness is a virulent form of fascism that is much in style these days. One form of prejudice condemning another is what political correctness is. As for the groups you allude to who would like to resurrect the "racist past"...yes, they should not be encouraged, so I appreciate your concern about that. No one said it would be easy dealing with these things. It never is. We are certainly in partial agreement, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Naemanson Date: 11 Aug 00 - 03:08 PM Please understand that these men were not necessarily fighting for slavery. Probably none of them were slave owners. They were fighting for the right of their state to make that decision instead of the Federal government! they fought for states rights. It just got wrapped up in slavery because that was the issue du jour. If slavery had been abolished earlier than the 1860's, as it almost was in Virginia before the invention of the cotton gin, then they would have been fighting over another issue. Either way, those men fought and died for their state, not the right to own slaves. As such the conditions of their funeral should be dictated by that. Of course this is all moot. Didn't someone already point out that they were not military? Wasn't the Hunley a privateer working under a Letter of Marque? |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Irish sergeant Date: 11 Aug 00 - 06:07 PM Allow me to make a few points. The first being when letters of marque are issued, the crew is considered part of that nation's naval forces. (As was John Paul Jones much to the vehement protests of the British Royal Navy, who considered him a pirate.) Secondly, the remains of German soldiers are found and buried periodically to this day under the German flag even though they lost the war and Hitler's peccadillos were far worse than Jeff Davis' ever though of being. The ordinary soldier was fighting for the Confederacy because he felt his home was threatened. The Confederate government was fighting for "States rights" The particular right being slavery. All of that having been said, it must be noted that when the Civil War started and even before, when the Confederate states seceded, they did so because they didn't like who the people elected as president. It gets a bit convoluted. Also, they were military men in that P.G.T. Beauregard commissioned them to undertake the mission in the Hunley in an attempt to break the Union blockade of Charleston. They deserve to be laid to rest with military homours under the flag they served (At that time I believe it was the second national flag) Kindest reguards and thanks for a very fine discussion, Neil PS- I'm a big Clive Cussler fan and his work with NUMA makes that doubly so! |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Aug 00 - 06:41 PM Here's another thing that should probably be pointed out. Although slavery was the "hot" emotional issue of the war...particularly in the North, which needed an emotional issue to motivate its civilians and fighting men...there was a much deeper and more fundamental issue underlying the War Between the States. It was that the South had been steadily losing its political clout in Congress for generations, due to the following reasons: a) a much smaller population than the North b) much less heavy industry c) the declining importance of cotton and agriculture d) the lion's share of the big banks and big money was in the North. So, the North was basically getting a stranglehold on financial and industrial control and dominating the political process at the same time. The South felt disenfranchised, just as the West presently feels disenfranchised in Canada...for much the same kind of reasons. These were the issues that would have eventually resulted in Southern secession whether or not the South had abolished slavery...and secession meant war. The South fought a defensive war. They fought merely to survive as a separate entity. (Lee's one offensive foray, which led to Gettysburg, was simply an attempt to discourage the North into abandoning further war efforts against the Confederacy). The South didn't have enough men or industry to fight anything but a defensive war, and they had almost no navy, a crucial factor. The North fought an offensive war. They weren't fighting just to survive, they were fighting to conquer the other side completely...which they did. Unconditional surrender was their credo, and they got it. I've played historical military wargames most of my life, due to an interest in strategy and military history. The South had virtually no chance of winning or even surviving that war, because they were outnumbered in men, money, and material at a ratio of 4 or 5 to one. That they lasted as long as they did was mainly due to the absolute brilliance of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and a few other commanders, and to the very noteable skill and elan of their troops. Ulysses S. Grant correctly deduced that he could grind Lee down in an unimaginative battle of attrition, and he eventually did just that. The US Navy tied down the South, crippled their economy, and allowed Federal forces to invade at many points, and to control the Mississippi. The Hunley's mission was one of various desperate attempts to oppose the naval blockade. Those attempts were brave but fruitless. The ironclad Virginia (sometimes called Merrimac) made another such attempt...equally fruitless in the end. The South would have been wise to have discontinued slavery prior to seceding, and to have freed the blacks. It would have given the North far less political ammunition to work with, and the cotton farmers could have hired freedmen, and would have. Unfortunately, this was not done. Southern men were proud and in many cases arrogant and cocksure...they were sure they could beat the Yankees on the field of battle. Well, they did beat them quite a few times, but time was not on their side. The fact is, they didn't have a dog's chance in hell, no more than Hitler did when he simultaneously took on England, Russia, and the USA. The Civil War and the defeat of the South were virtually inevitable...slavery or no slavery.
|
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 11 Aug 00 - 07:20 PM Very good post,Hawk,but I disagree that the South should have abolished Slavery prior to seceding. Despite the facts you state as to the Confederacy's motivations, slavery was inextricably linked with its economic survival as an independent entity. There was not enough cheap labor to make the vast plantations profitable without it. And so slavery,I think, was always the unspoken cause. Lincoln was an abolitionist at heart for long before he abolished it: He had straddled the fence out of fear of alienating his political support,and in hope that the rebellion would run its course. The South did,in my opinion,have a chance to win though. The early victory at Bull Run shook the Union to its core. Many in the South thought the war over when the battle was won. The succeeding string of military defeats suffered by Union forces might have cause another man to hesitate,or declare truce,but Lincoln was a stubborn and dedicated man, and he hung in until Gettysburg and Grant reversed the tide. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Aug 00 - 11:07 PM Yeah, Lonesome, you may be right. The thing that fascinated me in those wargames was...what if the South could win dramatic enough victories early on...maybe even capture Washington in the first year. If so, the North might have sued for peace, and there would have been 2 countries, not one, south of Canada. It would have been an extraordinary situation, and would probably have led to further wars later on. Similarly, in World War II, the Germans had 2 crucial windows of opportunity...one was the Battle of Britain in 1940 (which they very nearly won)...and the other was the approach to Moscow in the summer and fall of 1941...which fell short by just a hair of defeating Stalinist Russia. World history would have been radically different if they had won either of those campaigns. You may also be right that slavery was crucial to the Southern economy. I'll have to look further into that. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Sourdough Date: 12 Aug 00 - 12:04 AM About the Bonhomme Richard: As far as I know, NUMA never had any luck locating it. I asked the sonar men what they had been looking for. What is left of a wooden ship nearly two hundred years after it sinks in a place with strong currents? The main item they were looking for was ballast which would all be set together in one place. The rocks would have made a pile where they fell. Then there should be cannon scattered about the site in a fairly compact debris field. I spent part of this morning looking for my Hunley/Numa t-shirt. Today seemed like a good day to wear it but I am afraid that somewhere between Washington and Sonoma COunty, it found its way into Davy Jones' locker or some other hard to reach place. I do want to repeat one thing abut raising the Hunley. The crew are being recovered, not desecrated. They are being brought to a place marked by an appropriate gravestone where people, including their descendants, will be able to come and feel the closeness, the opportunity for communing, that it affords. Some people will use their moment to feel pride that they share the same blood as those men who died on the Hunley, others will reflect on their courage and probably most of us will wonder if we ever would have had the courage to do what these men did if it were our homes and families that were threatened. Having the remains of the Hunley, itself, nearby will make the reality of what the nine men did, their sacrifice, all the more concrete. To say that these men should not be honored because lawyers will try to make an issue of them or because sensational journalists will use them to sell their publications is a cop out. We can honor them for living up to a higher standard than most of us will ever be called on to face. We may disagree with the government we understand they were supporting but to say these men were misled, misguided, uninformed is more of a slap in the face than moving them from the bottom of Charleston Harbor could ever be. The men who made up the Hunley's crews knew that their country was under attack, that their friends and families were suffering from lack of jobs, food, and sheter and that in battles throughout the South, Virginians were fighting and dying. That was enough for them to feel that risking their lives was their duty. And we are left with the question, "What ideals do we have for which we would risk our lives?" Sourdough brought up one mile from the Union Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Nashua, NH |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Aug 00 - 10:23 AM Amen, sourdough. Well said. Your words might well be placed by their memorial. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: rangeroger Date: 12 Aug 00 - 11:51 AM Cussler in "The Sea Hunters" says they made two attempts to locate the Bonhomme Richard and were unsucessful both times. They did,however,run onto and identify a Russian spy trawler that had mysteriosly sunk a short time prior to their discovery.The Royal Navy was highly interested in that one. rr |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Naemanson Date: 12 Aug 00 - 12:14 PM Sourdough, if you were referring to my remark about sleazy lawyers and politicians please reread my post. I agree completely that these men should be honored for what they did and what they believed in. I, too, believe they should be honored under the flag they fought for. My remark was intended as a sarcastic comment on our times. Someone will try to make a greasy buck out of the Hunley and that is, to my mind, as criminal as desecrating a graveyard. About slavery being crucial to the south - It was my understanding that slavery almost died out in Virginia becasue even with slaves it was not economical for farmers pay to process their cotton. Then Eli Whitney came along and invented the cotton gin and the farmers could process the cotton themselves. Slavery was reborn and our feet were placed on the path the the Civil War. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 12 Aug 00 - 02:02 PM I re-reading my post,it occurs to me that my statement in which I say "I disagree that the South should have abolished slavery prior to secession" can be interpreted to say that I am in some way justifying that criminal act. I want to emphasize that I did not intend that meaning, but aam saying that,doomed as it was, the South's economic fate was tied to slave labor,and thus could not reject it. Thanks to Sourdough for expressing my thoughts about those who died defending their homes and what they believed to be their God-given right to declare their independence. We can little understand their selfless bravery in light of the self-centered world in which we live. When I think of the courage it took for Pickett's Brigade to make that long walk in the face of withering fire,for the Irish Brigade to press forward up the Fredricksberg hill against impossible odds. or the Union troops to charge at Cold Harbor where 7000 were killed in 40 minutes ,their names pinned to their coats,it seems obvious that these men had an abiding faith in God and in each other. These men,whether or not their lives were noble,died nobly. Their flag symbolized their aspirations.We are not the ones to judge them. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Banjer Date: 12 Aug 00 - 06:31 PM OK...Had about all of this I can stomach....The original cause of the Civil War was NOT SLAVERY as so many of the politically correct like to assume! The South seceded from the Union over the issue of states rights. That is to say whether or not any individual state should take their guidance from a central form of government. Slavery did not become an issue until the early part of 1863 when Lincoln called for 300,000 more troops and the good folks of the North told him to go take a hike. They wern't sending any more of their sons or husbands to get slaughtered in a conflict which the North originally promised they would have solved in 90 days or less. When Mr. Lincoln realized his call was falling on deaf ears, he wrote the Emancipation Plroclimation in late 1862, to turn the war into a moral fight rather than just a legal issue. I firmly believe the crew of the Hunley (the third one to sink) should be placed with full Confederate military honors next to the bodies of the first two crews. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: GUEST,unreconstructed Date: 12 Aug 00 - 08:50 PM Right. CLICK HERE |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: GUEST,Unreconstructed Date: 12 Aug 00 - 08:54 PM my error- CLICK HERE |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Sourdough Date: 12 Aug 00 - 09:06 PM Naemanson: I was not reacting specifically to you but I appreciate your reminding me of what you said. Banjer: We all suffer from the problem of trying to give cause to major events. It seems as though the only way we can talk about big issues is to oversimplify. If you have ever pondered over "War and Peace", that is much what the novel is about, trying to figure out why there are wars, why people are willing to fight, to follow a charismatic leader, to fight for a homeland. Wars which involve millions of people contain almost as many motives. You wrote, "The original cause of the Civil War was not slavery". You can make that argument but you have to admit that other reasonable people can make a counter argument. From the early nineteenth century to the present, slavery has been the cause of a great running sore in the American body. Newspaper editors were beaten, political careers were truncated, the Amistad, the Dred Scott decision, compromises in the Senate reached only after Senators got into fights including beating one lawmaker with a walking stick on the Senate floor, public bravery and private cowardice all were a part of how America dealt with the issue. SOme ministers went to jail for their abiolitionist beliefs. Others figured out how the Bible supported slavery, giving it a moral basis. Slavery was a major issue in the nation. If you read the newspapers of the time, you can see that slavery was considered by many to be a moral issue. Others saw it as an economic issue, others a States Rights issue but it was an issue that everyone at the time had an opinion about. Was it the original cause? I can understand your saying it was not but what does that mean? The Union soldiers who went out to fight may have been searching for what the fFrench Army calls "La Gloire" , at least early in the war. However, even those felt their personal lives were somehow enriched by the fact hat they were fighting slavery. Certainly, many of those Union soldiers who were wounded and spent the rest of their lives in shattered bodies believed that they had been involved in a great crusade of liberation. You can see it in songs like "We are coming Father Abraham" and Battle Hymn of the Republic". For the fifty or more years following the war, The Grand Army of the Republic, made up of Union veterans took pride in their role of ending slavery in the US. I think people get it wrong when they say that Lincoln was not against slavery. I think it is clear that he found it distasteful. What he said was something to the effect that he felt that the Union was more important than the issue of slavery. He could accept slavery if he had to if it meant that the union would be indivisible. That is not the same as saying he did not care. I did not mean to go on so long about this. My major interest is in the Hunley expedition and don't mean to drone on so. Excuse me, please. Longwinded but now winded Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: GUEST,The Yank Date: 12 Aug 00 - 09:09 PM OK...Had about all of this I can stomach....The cause of the Civil War was NOT SLAVERY Think you probably just answered This Question!
|
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Aug 00 - 10:43 PM Well, I did make the point that there would have been a civil war with or without slavery, because the South was losing their economic and political sovereingty to the more populous and industrialized North...so that was the root cause, I would think. The slavery issue was another contributing cause, and a very thorny one, that inflamed people's emotions far more than the economic and political issues, so it cannot be dismissed as a cause of the war, but not necessarily THE cause. Then there is state's rights...a very issue leading to that war. People have the right to divorce, so why should a state not have the right to secede? Obviously, everyone has made useful points in this discussion. For each one of us the crucial cause in the above will seem to be the one which happens to push our particular emotional buttons the most...and that depends on our upbringing, what we've been exposed to, the "filter of our perceptions", to quote from another thread (women's causes in music...or something like that). Hey folks, we're all subjective to an extent, and every one of those causes played a part in bringing about that war. That's life. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Sourdough Date: 13 Aug 00 - 12:18 PM Little Hawk: You managed to say, in far fewer words, what I was struggling to get out. Sourdough |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Whistle Stop Date: 14 Aug 00 - 09:05 AM Coming back to this thread after a few days' absence, I discover that we seem to be fighting the Civil War all over again. The debate over the cause of the war -- slavery vs. states' rights -- has been going on since before the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter. Most historians agree that both were important causes which were inextricably linked. The hot political issue of the day was the "right" of the southern states not only to continue slavery (Lincoln allowed that he would not try to stop that), but also to extend it to new territories and states. They had an interest in extending it in order to maintain the viability of their economic system, and to avoid being outvoted in Congress every time an issue related to slavery came up for a vote. States' rights was clearly an important issue, but the primary "right" being defended was the right to keep slaves and maintain a viable slave-based economy. As in so many wars, the primary cause was economics, which is based on a lot of factors (manufacturing vs. agrarian economies, trade with other nations, etc.). But slavery was an essential element of the confederate states' economic systems, and the one which ultimately proved to be the defining issue of the war. For the record, I believe that the men who died in the Confederate cause (including a number of my ancestors) are deserving of praise and honors. Like most soldiers in most wars, they were fighting for their fellow soldiers, and for the folks back home. Most soldiers did not own slaves, and most did not consider slavery to be the primary issue. But I do not feel it is necessary to honor them by draping their coffins with newly-manufactured Confederate flags, any more than I think it would be appropriate to resurrect all the pomp and circumstance of Nazi rituals (swastikas, SS honor guards, etc.) whenever a German soldier's newly-discovered remains are laid to rest. We can honor them without honoring their discredited cause. And the fact that that cause is frequently used as a rallying cry for racist groups that are active in the US now makes it all the more important that we don't legitimize it. People who lose wars do not get to hang onto their symbols, for good reason; the winners do not want these symols to serve as a rallying point for those who would fight the same war over again. That's the way the world works, and I think it is as it should be. {And my view is that the bones of the silors recovered from the deep really would not object to the absence of Confederate flags at their funerals.] |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Naemanson Date: 14 Aug 00 - 10:28 AM My daughter goes to school at Gettysburg College so I see a lot of that area. In the town there is a wide range of attitudes towards the Civil War, most aimed at making money from the tourists. But when you go out on to the battlefield all of that drops away and only the honor and respect for the men of both sides is evident. My own great great grandfather fought there as did, I'm sure, many of the relatives of the United Statesian Mudcatters. I like to go out to the monument and view the area where he stood and where he was wounded. I also like to go up to Little Round Top and see where Joshua Chamberlain's men made their lonely stand. I have seen people in the uniforms of both sides out there and their intent is always the honor and respect for the men who fought there. While on the battlefield the old arguments cease. Other Civil War areas I have seen are usually treated the same way. The only exception I have seen was in Americas, Georgia, where the Civil War prison Andersonville once stood. There, on July 4, 1984, I saw a re-enactment where the ragged "Yankees" came into town to rape the women and slaughter the children. Then the noble boys in grey came in and shot all the Yanks. While that was difficult enough to stomach (the rape and slaughter) what really got to me was the man who explained to his little son that the re-enactment was "how it really happened." |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: InOBU Date: 14 Aug 00 - 05:55 PM Gee I don't know why I took so long to read all this. I was interested in the Hunnley ever since as a kid, I saw the episode about it in JKF's Profiles In Courage (written by Salinger actualy we know know...) But anyway... As to the confederate flag, as a radical lawyer, though not high paid, as you all know from earlier posts... I think there is a huge difference in draping their coffins with the flag for which they fought, then there is flying a flag of session over a state capitol. I think it would be very appropriate to have a funneral with both Confederate and Union uniforms to honnor the step forward in US military technology to which their bravery led. As the the questions about the Fennian Ram, the song is not fiction, though it is not accurate. The Ram, or the Holland 6 was built in NYC on 18th street, or west 16th Street, I forget. It is presently on display in Patterson NJ. It was stolen from Holland by the fenians who paid him to build it, when it was about to be taken by the British when the British purchased and foreclosed on Holland's debts. Holland was not a big Republican, though he was not fond of England. The Fenians sank the sub while trying to learn how to work in, in the Patterson river. It was raised in 1916 and put on display at a fund raiser to rebuild Dublin after England's bombardment of the town by the light cruiser Helga. It had a compressed air torpedo tube and had successfully sunk a barge purchased for the purpose of testing torpedos. Holland went on to design the first generation of US military subs. I don't believe he was the Holland who engineered the Holland tunnel, but I may be worng. Best to all Larry |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Sourdough Date: 15 Aug 00 - 05:45 AM Not having your background in history, InOBU, when I read that we all know now that Salinger (I figure you mean Pierre not J.D.) wrote it Profiles in Courage, it comes across as a knee-jerk pedestal attack. Since it was written at a time when JFK was ill and needed a project to keep him from getting depressed, I assumed he really wrote it. He said he wrote it. His wife said he wrote it and the Encyclopedia Brittanica said he wrote it so it seems fair to say that we don't all know that Salinger wrote it. That's not to say he didn't but I would be curious where you, and presumably everyone else, learned that he didn't. Sourdough PS: I had the same history teacher in high school that Kennedy had, Russell Ayres. He was a remarkable man himself. When I was his student, at the end of his teaching career, he could point to two of his former pupils with great pride, Adlai Stevenson and John Kennedy. It is no coincidence that each of them became both students and shapers of history. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: InOBU Date: 15 Aug 00 - 06:14 AM Hi Sourdough: There was a widely covered report on network news several years ago about how JD Salinger had ghost written Profiles In Courage, as the writing is completely like the rest of his writing. It is not to take away from the legacy of JFK, and in fact, many wealth patrons put their name on work that they produce rather than write. I will see if I can find a site for that report - its most significant point was not about Kennedy's lack of scholarship, he was a good scholar, but about how the Kennedy family was prepairing to reintroduce him into his political career. All the best Larry |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: bob schwarer Date: 07 Sep 00 - 09:35 AM Ran across this today from "Twisted History" Don't know why it's called "Twisted". A little more submarine info. 1776 - David Bushnell of Connecticut attacked a British ship of the line, HMS Asia, in New York harbor with his oak-hulled submarine Turtle. He was entangled in Asia's rudder bar, loosed his ballast and surfaced, attempted to secure a cask of gunpowder to Asia's hull, but the cask floated away and Bushnell was captured. Bob S. |
|
Subject: RE: The Confederate Sub 'Hunley', any info? From: Naemanson Date: 07 Sep 00 - 09:55 AM David Bushnell built the Turtle, or at least designed the Turtle, in Westbrook Connecticut, my mother's home town. Larry Kaplan wrote a neat little (funny) song about it. I heard him sing it at Mystic about three years ago. |
| Share Thread: |