 |
". . . if you wish to see war
every day and night,
this is the place [Charleston] to see it."
George
E. Dixon
21st
Alabama Infantry
captain
H.L. Hunley
5 February 1864
Introduction
In
2008, the
Maritime Research Division (MRD) was awarded an American Battlefield
Protection Program (ABPP) grant administered by the National Park
Service to study the naval and combined operations at the Charleston
Harbor Naval Battlefield during the American Civil War. The ABPP
provides these funds to encourage preserving and protecting
battlefields and sites that influenced American history, promoting and
assisting in preservation management and planning of these sites, and
increasing awareness and appreciation of preserving these significant
battlefields and sites for future generations. Funds from the
ABPP grant allowed the MRD to undertake historical research and
archaeological investigations on cultural resources remaining on the
Charleston Harbor Naval Battlefield, the scene of a protracted struggle
from 1861 to 1865 between Confederate defenders and Federal attackers.
Through archaeological remains and historical research, the project
aimed to identify the boundary, and the various core and defining
features of the battlefield, namely the wrecks of ironclads and
blockade runners, now-submerged land batteries, and
obstructions. To accomplish the goals of defining the
battlefield boundary, the accurate positioning and extent of the
associated features required the use of Differential Global Positioning
System (DGPS) and a variety of non-disturbance remote sensing
technologies. Historical and previous archaeological research guided
field operations to pinpoint known sites, and to survey for
historically-documented battlefield related cultural features. Research
and field operations undertaken to identify these known and potential
features from both sides of the conflict served to develop a more
complete understanding of the battlefield to aid in the interpretation
and preservation of these Civil War resources. The webpage
briefly discusses the scope and findings of the project and links to a
virtual tour of the naval battlefield and a short article published in
SCIAA's newsletter Legacy.
For those seeking more information about the project and its findings a
report (very large) is downloadable (See sidebar).
 |
|
| CCharleston
Harbor Naval Battlefield project area. |
Historical Sketch of Charleston
In 1670, a
colonial expedition of English settlers sailed to present-day
Charleston Harbor and founded Charles Town (re-named Charleston in
1783). Named in honor of the King of England, Charles II, the
town developed into an entrepôt for the exploitation and exportation of
natural resources, furs—primarily deerskins, and naval stores to
England. Originally settled on the west bank of the Ashley
River on Albemarle Point, the town relocated in 1680 to Charleston
Neck, a peninsula formed by the confluence of the Ashley and Cooper
Rivers. These two rivers join to form Charleston Harbor with
outlet to the Atlantic Ocean. A move intended to expand and
create shipping opportunities for the growing and prosperous
colony. In the intervening years prior to the Revolutionary
War, Charleston flourished as trade transitioned from a natural to an
agricultural-based economy centered on indigo, sea island cotton, and
rice cultivation using African slave labor. The Carolina
colony, with Charleston as the epicenter, became one of the richest
colonies in the British Empire as a result of the large rice
plantations centered on the upper reaches of the Ashley and Cooper
Rivers. The move for independence from England in 1776
brought ruin and deprivation to the port. Repelling a naval
and land assault in late June 1776, American troops and militia in the
city capitulated to British arms in 1780. Remaining under
British domination until the war ended in 1783, the port languished as
a trading backwater.
 |
|
| Britsh
naval forces attacking Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island in 1776 |
Under the new
Federal government, Charleston slowly recovered its preeminence as a
southern trading port, relying on the exportation of rice and cotton as
the mainstay of its economic vitality. The War of 1812
temporarily disrupted shipping and economic development as British
privateers preyed on American shipping along the southern
shores. Although returning to normalcy and continued
prosperity after the cessation of the war, the next several decades saw
the gathering clouds of discontent concerning the economic development
of the city, South Carolina, and the South. Issues of great
national import created heated political discourse in relation to the
role of the Federal government vís a vís State government.
The first issue centered on Federal tariffs on foreign trade, greatly
impacting imports and Charleston’s economic lifeblood. South
Carolina passed an Ordinance of Nullification in 1832, allowing the
state to override the Federal tariff. In response, Federal
revenue cutters and troops were deployed to collect the fees in
Charleston. The predicament finally ended with a repeal of
the State ordinance and revisions to the Federal tariff. The
next national crisis in the late 1850s and early 1860s—the question of
slavery would not end so peaceably. Led by South Carolina, a
cascade of southern states drafted and enacted Ordinances of Secession
from the United States in late 1860 to early 1861. These
newly independent states joined to form the Confederate States of
America in the beginning of 1861. So as the first ordinance
of secession was signed in Charleston, so to the first shots of the
American Civil War erupted from the city onto Fort Sumter.
 |
|
| Fort Sumter
under Confederate bombardment in 1861. |
Charleston
Harbor during the
Civil War
From the
first
shots upon Fort Sumter on 12 April 1861 to the evacuation of the city
by Confederate forces on 17-18 February 1865, the port became the scene
of a protracted struggle between land and naval forces. Following
the announcement of
secession from the Union on 20 December 1860, State and then
Confederate forces strengthened military positions around Charleston
Harbor. Political and military authorities had two outcomes
in mind: one, to force the withdrawal of the Federal garrison in Fort
Sumter, and two, to prevent relief operations from aiding the
beleaguered forces in the fort. To force the abandonment of
Fort Sumter, a number of pre-existing forts were strengthened for
action: Fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island, Fort Johnson on James
Island, and Castle Pinckney, just off Charleston in the
harbor. All of these forts ringed, with their guns directed
towards, Fort Sumter. New construction of a string of
defensive earthen works along the main harbor entrance on Sullivan’s
Island augmented Fort Moultrie. At the northeastern tip of
Morris Island, Cummings Point, and along the beach fronting the Main
Ship Channel, several batteries were erected. The Cummings
Point guns were directed at Fort Sumter, while those along the channel
in the Atlantic Ocean were meant to thwart entrance into the harbor by
Federal vessels. A Floating Battery situated inside the
harbor between Sullivan’s Island and Mt. Pleasant, along with armed
launches and steamers, added a naval component to the terrestrial
preparations. Expecting the arrival of a Federal relief
expedition,
Confederate forces commenced fire on Fort Sumter in the early morning
hours of 12 April. The bombardment lasted for approximately
33 hours. Satisfying his duty and obligation to his country,
Major Robert Anderson surrendered his command of the fort to the
Confederacy the next day.
 |
|
| Fort
Moultrie preparing for action against Fort Sumter looming in the
background. |
Following
the
capitulation of Fort Sumter, Confederate and State military authorities
now directed their attentions to protecting themselves from the
expected Federal invasion force bent on subduing the city.
General Pierre G. T. Beauregard, commander of Confederate forces in
Charleston anticipated five potential Federal avenues of approach to
attack the city. He ordered the construction of a series of
earthen work forts and batteries at key points stretching from Bull’s
Bay to the north and to John’s Island to the south to ring the
city. Two water avenues, Charleston Harbor, provided direct
access to the city, while the Stono River on the southern flank,
afforded a backdoor entrance to the city through Wappoo Cut and then
into the harbor. To prevent an Union naval assault via these
water passages, critical Confederate defenses were centered on the sea
islands south of the island, primarily James, John’s, Cole’s, Folly,
and Morris Islands, and north of the harbor, Sullivan’s
Island. General Robert E. Lee assumed command after
Beauregard was ordered north to prepare for the upcoming First Battle
of Manassas. Continuing to implement the basic defensive
cordon around Charleston, Lee’s major contribution to the defenses of
the city was to realize the superiority of naval guns over field
batteries in regards to range, especially those along the Stono
River. He ordered the placement of the batteries on James
Island more towards the Ashley River side, or northern side.
This in effect conceded a landing and staging area to a Federal force,
but more prudently, kept the Confederate earthen works and any
counter-offensive force out of direct covering fire from the
gunboats. Lee gave way to General John C. Pemberton, when he
was ordered back to Richmond.
Pemberton
continued the fortification of the low country and the city as outlined
by Beauregard and Lee. He, however, made one change that
angered many in the city and the state—abandoning the battery
established on Cole’s Island at the mouth of the Stono River.
Prior to this move, the southern defensive line of the city, and
thought the most likely Federal route of attack of taking James Island
via the Stono River, stretched, island-wise, from James’s Island and
pivoted on Cole’s Island, both on the Stono River. The line
then veered northeast with Folly Island and Morris Island along the
Atlantic Ocean, and then over the entrance of Charleston Harbor to
Sullivan’s Island. Withdrawing the battery from Cole’s Island
in effect removed the keystone island linking the Stono River defenses
with the Atlantic Ocean defenses. Many argued that this
essentially provided a toehold for Union troops to attack James Island
and to open the Stono River for marauding Federal gunboats, both of
which in fact happened. Pemberton argued the move was
tactically sound—to prevent the capture of the guns and garrison on
Cole’s Island. His opponents argued the move was
strategically unsound—he had opened the door for Federal
attack. Losing his command over this issue, Pemberton assumed
a post out west, while Beauregard returned to once again to work on
strengthening the defenses for the impending strike at South Carolina
and Charleston.
Confederate preparations to counter a direct thrust into Charleston
Harbor, the main defense against a Federal naval assault relied on the
coastal forts and batteries, and physical obstructions. Fort
Sumter, along with Fort Moultrie and a number of earthen works along
the harbor-side of Sullivan’s Island, formed a protective outer harbor
defense. An inner harbor defense consisted of Fort Johnson on
James Island, Fort Ripley on a man-enhanced islet in the middle of
the harbor, Castle Pinckney, a couple of batteries at Mt. Pleasant, and
a series of earthen works haloing the city itself. Besides
relying on the many guns protecting the harbor, Beauregard ordered the
fabrication of physical obstructions to the harbor entrance.
A log-boom stretched from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, with a small
opening for blockade runners to enter the harbor. This
obstruction proved troublesome to maintain, and was abandoned in favor
of a series of rope entanglements and torpedoes to thwart enemy attack
at various points in the harbor. While the Confederates had
armed a few steamers prior to and just after launching hostilities,
there were no true warships stationed in the harbor until the
fabrication of three ironclads, CSS Chicora, CSS Palmetto State and
CSS
Columbia.
Clad in iron rail road tracks, these vessels were
under powered and served mainly as floating gun platforms inside the
harbor. Although, the ironclads CSS Chicora and CSS Palmetto
State in consort with two wooden steamers did, however,
make one
aggressive sortie which resulted in a temporary break in the Federal
blockade. After this successful counter-offensive move, the
ironclads remained in station in the inner harbor providing support for
the outer defenses, primarily acting as a deterrent to Federal
aggression. Two novel approaches were undertaken by the Confederates to
contest Union naval superiority. The first involved a
semi-submersible-class of vessel called Davids, and a true
submarine,
H.L. Hunley.
Both vessels launched offensive action against
the Union fleet off Charleston, only one, Hunley, sank
another ship,
USS Housatonic,
while a David
did succeed in detonating a spar torpedo
against the hull of USS New
Ironsides, and although damaging the
warship’s hull failed to cause it to retire from its station.
 |
|
| Confederate
harbor steamboat at Fort Johnson with Fort Ripley in
background. |
Federal
naval
strategy at Charleston evolved initially from blockading the port to
actively participating in combined operations with the army and in
launching strikes against Confederate defenses. The role of
the navy changed after the second great Union invasion expedition
captured Port Royal Sound in late 1861, located between Charleston and
Savannah. The facilities at the sound provided a convenient
logistical point for both the army and navy from which to maintain the
blockade and most importantly, launch attacks against Charleston and
other coastal destinations. Building a presence off the
harbor, the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, primarily composed of
wooden vessels, patrolled the waters to prevent the departure of
contraband goods, i.e., cotton, rice and naval stores, and the arrival
of military supplies and other goods. In an effort to close
off the two main channels into Charleston Harbor, the Main Ship Channel
and Maffitt’s (or Beach) Channel, 29 ex-whalers and merchant vessels
from New England were
sunk in two separate ventures, the First and Second Stone
Fleets. Quickly consumed by the shifting sands at the two
channels, the stone fleets failed to keep blockade runners at
bay. The majority of blockade runners attempting to run the
blockade succeeded, primarily using Maffitt’s Channel, which was
protected by Confederate land batteries on Sullivan’s Island. A number of
them, however, were interdicted or destroyed when they grounded and
then subsequently pounded by Union naval and or land fire to prevent
their valuable cargoes falling into the hands of the Confederates.
 |
|
| Union
blockader chasing a blockade runner. |
Offensive
capability manifested itself with the arrival of several ironclads in
early 1863. Under pressure from Washington, Rear-Admiral
Samuel F. Du Pont, commander of the South Atlantic Blockading
Squadron, ordered an armored thrust into Charleston Harbor with the
objective of attacking Fort Sumter. On the afternoon of 7
April 1863, the Federal fleet of eight ironclads and the New Ironsides
steamed through the Main Ship Channel and into the throat of the
harbor. Awaiting the invasion fleet and anticipating this day
for several years, the Confederate artillerists, protected in a series
of fortified forts and earthen works armed with heavy ordnance, with
ranges marked by buoys, opened fire as the ironclads entered the
harbor. Approaching within 900 to 1,300 yards of Fort Sumter,
the ironclads, near point blank range from the Confederate artillery,
concentrated their fire on Fort Sumter. Persevering through
the destructive iron storm of Confederate shot and shell, the ironclads
pressed their attack for over two hours before withdrawing.
Heavily damaged the fleet returned to its anchorage off the southern
end of Morris Island to regroup and to make repairs for another
attack. During the evening, the riddled ironclad Keokuk sank
from battle damage sustained that afternoon. A council of
officers decided not to re-enter the harbor with their damaged
ironclads, and the ironclad fleet disbanded several days later to Port
Royal and up North for repairs. This was the last and only
direct naval assault against the harbor. Although, the navy
did attempt one more attack against Fort Sumter, using barges armed
with sailors in late 1863. A costly failure, the Confederates
easily beat back the attack.
 |
|
| Turret of monitor USS Passaic showing effects of 7 April 1863 attack on Charleston Harbor. |
Following
the
ironclad attack which cost Du Pont his command, the blockaders settled
back into preventing blockade runners from entering the
harbor. The arrival of new Army and Navy commanders, bent on
capturing Charleston, signaled the advent of another attempt,
this time in combined operations, to capture the city in
mid-1863. As a prelude to their plan, General Quincy Gillmore
and Rear-Admiral John Dahlgren joined forces to attack Confederate
positions on Morris Island. The navy directed enfilading fire
from offshore the island at the two main Confederate batteries on the
island: Battery Wagner, and Battery Gregg at Cummings
Point. As the Federal troops launched several unsuccessful
and costly direct assaults on Battery Wagner, the monitors, USS New Ironsides, and
wooden gunboats directed heavy fire at the battery. Resorting
to sapping to gain the battery, the troops labored to create a series
of parallels and batteries under a protective barrage maintained by the
Union fleet. Anticipating the battery and island were no
longer tenable to hold; the Confederates abandoned their works on the
night of 6 September 1863.
 |
|
| Monitor fleet pounding Battery Wagner in 1863. |
While
the Federal
troops worked on capturing Morris Island, they also directed their
attention to bombarding the city of Charleston and Fort
Sumter. Fabricating a battery in the marsh between Morris and
James Islands, and nicknamed the “Swamp Angel”, a 200–pdr. Parrott
rifle launched projectiles at the city from 21 August 1863 until early
1865. Federal guns from the land batteries on Morris Island
and the ironclads combined to reduce Fort Sumter from a defensive
weapon armed with a multitude of heavy guns commanding the harbor
entrance into a mere infantry outpost. Despite the Army’s
claim that the battered fort offered no impediment to a naval incursion
against Charleston, the navy hesitated deeming the fort, along with the
obstructions consisting of ropes and torpedoes strung between the fort
and Sullivan’s Island, an obstacle to taking the city.
Despite the capture of Morris Island and a reduction in the defensive
capability of Fort Sumter, Federal land and naval forces remained
stationary off Charleston Harbor until early 1865.
As
Federal land
forces aimed for the political head of the Confederacy at Richmond, the
combined naval and land forces struggled to pierce the heart at
Charleston, oftentimes referred to as the “Cradle of Secession”.
Ultimately, Confederate steadfastness and ingenuity, along with waxing
and waning Union military and political objectives in regards to taking
Charleston, resulted in a stalemate between the two combatants. A dead
lock only broken by the flanking march through South Carolina by
Federal forces under General William T. Sherman. Federal army
and naval commanders devised a series of feints and actions along the
coastline to assist Sherman in covering his true intentions from
Confederate military authorities. The navy assisted by
launching a series of incursions up the tidal rivers between Port Royal
Sound and Charleston Harbor, and north at Bull’s Bay. The
ironclads also opened a heavy fire on Fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s
Island, and were alerted to possible Confederate attempts to abandon
the harbor and city. On the evening of 17 April 1865,
Confederate forces kept up limited firing from their outer defenses to
cover their retreat. Information from deserters, along with
the outbreak of fires in the city, and tremendous explosions caused by
scuttling the ironclads provided confirmation that a retreat was in
effect. Finally, on the morning of 18 February, Union naval
forces pushed their way into Charleston, although mindful of torpedoes
and other obstructions which had recently claimed the monitor USS
Patapsco
a month previous, and planted the United States flag over the
abandoned works on Sullivan’s Island, Mt. Pleasant, Charleston, and
most significantly, on the shapeless ruins of Fort Sumter.
 |
|
| United States flag flying over Fort Sumter in 1865. |
Post
War Charleston
Following the
war, Charleston once again languished as a backwater port with the
collapse of its agricultural mainstay—rice, once dependent on
cultivation by a now freed labor source. The discovery in the
late 1860s of phosphate, used as an agricultural fertilizer, in nearby
rivers and land deposits stimulated the economic rebirth of the
city. Increased port activity created a need for a number of
harbor improvements: dredging ship channels, removing navigational
hazards—primarily Civil War-era wrecks, and the building of two stone
jetties at the entrance to Charleston Harbor. A natural
calamity, the Charleston Earthquake of 1886, once again threw the city
into ruins. Despite the setback, the city recovered and by
the turn-of-the century harbor improvements and better support
infrastructure, along with local political maneuvering, caused the
recently created navy base in Port Royal Sound to relocate to North
Charleston in 1901. The base remained an important naval
asset, building many vessels during World War II, and an economic
engine in Charleston until its phased closure by the Defense Base and
Realignment Commission in the 1990s. Today the old base is
flourishing under civilian enterprises including ship refitting and
repairs, leased dock space, light industry, and home to the
conservation of H.L.
Hunley since its recovery in 2000.
Presently,
Charleston is one of the busiest ports in the United States, primarily
centered on container ships bringing in diverse products and goods,
ROROs (Roll-on/Roll-off ships) carrying foreign cars and other vehicles
and machinery, and bulk freighters carrying kaolin and other
commodities. Tourism focused on the cultural and natural
resources in the region provides another important economic stimulus in
Charleston. Historical attractions center on the legacy of
plantations, like Middleton Place and Boone Hall, and antebellum
planter homes in the city, and especially important, the remains of
Fort Sumter in the harbor. Natural resources include seafood
obtained by local watermen and by sport fishing, and the low country
landscape of tidal marshes, protected coastal waters, and the beaches.
Charleston
Harbor Naval
Battlefield Submerged Cultural Resources
Concluding four
years of defending, blockading, and assaulting with various implements
of war, both sides of the conflict left an array of cultural features
on the battlefield. Unlike many battlefields that may last
one day or several days leaving few traces, the siege of Charleston
Harbor lasted for four years with a plethora of evidence of the
intensity of the fighting. On the Confederate side, the
scattered remnants of the ironclads CSS Chicora and Palmetto State
scuttled during the withdrawal from the city, along with auxiliary
steamers, such as the Manigault,
lie on the harbor floor. Several land batteries now lay
inundated under harbor waters, most notably Battery Wagner and Fort
Ripley. Prior to the outbreak of the war, Confederate forces
sank four block ships at the bar of the Main Ship Channel to prevent
Federal warships and supply steamers from entering to aid in the relief
of the besieged Fort Sumter. Other obstructions developed as
the siege continued including a series of log booms stretching across
the harbor entrance, and several sets of frame torpedoes in various
channel locations throughout the harbor. Evidence of the
floating log-booms may not exist; however, piling stumps may indicate
the positions of the row obstructions A number of ill-fated
blockade runner’s, both underwater and now under the beach, rest off
Fort Moultrie, as well as along the northern approach into the
harbor—Maffit’s (Beach) Channel. The remains of the
Confederate submarine, H.L.
Hunley, once lay hidden on the bottom off Charleston
Harbor near its victim, USS Housatonic.
After the submarine's discovery (1995) and recovery (2000) it now resides in a
conservation tank undergoing preservation, eventually slated for
display at a purpose built museum in North Charleston.
On
the Federal
side, a number of vessels and other relicts provide testimony to the
Union attempt to take the city. In an attempt to close the
harbor to blockade runners, 29 ex-New England whaling and merchant
vessels were sunk at the two main channels and quickly consumed by the
shifting sediments. Three ironclads, two the victims of enemy
actions (USS Patapsco
and Keokuk),
and the other from foundering (USS Weehawken),
rest on the harbor floor. Another remnant of the ironclad
fleet, an anti-torpedo raft known as the “Devil” and used by Weehawken,
reportedly resides in the marsh behind Morris Island. The
first victim of a combat submarine, USS Housatonic, lies
buried under several feet of overburden five miles offshore.
There are also several Federal batteries, the “Swamp Angel”, with
portions remaining visible in the marsh, and Battery Shaw and the Surf
Battery, both of which potentially exist, but are now
inundated. Research and field operations undertaken to
identify these known and potential features from both sides of the
conflict served to develop a more complete understanding of the
battlefield to aid in the interpretation and preservation of these
Civil War resources.
Archaeological Investigations
From 2009 to
2011, the MRD conducted several forays onto the naval battlefield to
conduct marine and terrestrial remote sensing operations to detect
previously-located and unknown archaeological resources related to the
Civil War. These sites included several Union
ironclads and a number of Confederate blockade runners, the 7 April
1863 ironclad battleground, and now submerged fortifications and
obstructions inside the harbor and along Morris Island. The
following section illustrates a few of the areas and cultural resources
visited by the MRD in archaeologically-documenting the naval
battlefield.
 |
|
| Jim Spirek and Joseph Beatty retrieve magnetometer from Charleston Harbor. |
First and Second Stone Fleets
The
enforcement
of the blockade was the primary responsibility of the South Atlantic
Blockading Squadron (SABS) off Charleston, and throughout its territory
along the Atlantic coastline from South Carolina to Florida. The
arrival of USS Niagara
on 14 May 1861 to enforce the blockade signaled the first phase of
naval operations at Charleston Harbor. Stationed off the bar
of the Main Ship Channel, other blockading vessels began arriving
throughout the next months and subsequent years, taking up stations at
the other channel entrances to the harbor, namely Lawford, Swash,
North, and Maffitt’s/Beach Channel. Acknowledging the limited number of
vessels to enforce the blockade, to perform reconnaissance missions,
and to participate in joint operations with the army, Rear-Admiral Samuel F.
Du Pont, commander of the SABS, followed a suggestion of the Union
Blockade Strategy Board by blocking the two main channels into
Charleston Harbor, Main Ship and Maffitt’s/Beach, with two stone
fleets.
In
mid-October,
Union naval purchasing agents purchased approximately 45 ex-whaling and
merchant vessels, outfitted them with sea cocks to let water in, and
loaded them with granite and fieldstones. The vessels
purchased for the stone fleets were an assortment of old sailing,
mostly whaling ships including Corea,
originally an armed British
transport ship captured during the Revolutionary War, Tenedos built in
1806 and mentioned in Herman Melville’s poem, The Stone Fleet (1861), a
lament about the vessels of the stone fleet, and Garland, a
privateer
before becoming a whaler. Two separate divisions, numbering
25 and 20, of the vessels arrived off Port Royal and Savannah in early
December 1861. From 17-21 December 1861 the Union navy sank
sixteen vessels, reportedly placed in a checkered or indented fashion,
at the Bar of the Main Ship Channel. The hulks were intended to lie as
much as possible across the direction of the channel, and in several
lines apart to overlie each other to prevent a direct line through
them. The masts were cut down, and anything of possible
Confederate use was stripped from the hulks. One of the ships, the ex-whaler
Robin Hood,
with masts standing proud, was set afire. By
mid-February 1862, Confederate forces found large sections of the hulks
washed ashore. From 20 to 26 January 1862, thirteen vessels
were sunk as part of the Second Stone Fleet to obstruct the entrance to
Maffitt's/Beach Channel, with one escaped outlier between Rattlesnake
Shoal and Dewees Inlet Shoal due to a gale.
 |
|
| Union navy sinking ex-whaling and merchant vessels at Main Ship Channel. |
From
that point
on to the present, the general supposition was that the stone
fleet vessels simply dissolved and disappeared into the sand.
As part of the grant to document the battlefield, MRD wanted to
determine where the fleets rested and to resolve whether they were
buried or not. In an effort to locate the remains of the First and
Second Stone Fleets, MRD consulted historical documents and generated a
georeferenced 1858 harbor map that was overlaid modern nautical charts
to begin planning the survey. A georeferenced 1858 chart
provided a location for the bar to create the initial survey blocks for
the First Stone Fleet. The Federal account of sinking the vessels near
Rattlesnake Shoals and the Confederate account that they were scuttled
to the west of the shoals at the entrance to Maffitt’s/Beach Channel
helped to situate the Second Stone Fleet survey block. The
proximity of the wrecks of the blockade runners Georgiana, Mary Bowers,
and Constance
sunk while evading the blockaders and sunken obstructions
by steering for the beach route closer to Sullivan’s Island, lent
empirical support to our placement of the survey block.
Throwing an electronic cast net over the two surveys detected the
remains of the First Stone Fleet and in the Second Stone Fleet survey
area four rock-laden scows presumed associated with building the
Charleston Harbor Jetties from 1878 to 1895.
At
the First
Stone Fleet area, the magnetometer detected a grouping of magnetic
anomalies and subsequent side scan sonar investigations confirmed the
presence of approximately sixteen ballast mounds. MRD
underwater archaeologists and volunteers dove on the sites and noted
the presence of small to medium-sized rocks encrusted in sediment and
marine growth, copper-alloy fasteners, wood structure, and
miscellaneous components, including a copper-alloy gudgeon. An
illustration showing the sunken positions of the Stone Fleet was
located in the New York
Herald’s 23 December 1861 edition.
The illustration shows the arrangement of the vessels in five lines and
staggered and broadsides to the channel. The spatial distribution of
the detected shipwrecks by MRD, however, looks a bit more disorganized
than the documentary accounts proclaim. One wreck, an outlier
to the west of the main group of ballast mounds, was upon inspection
found to be more modern in nature, and not connected to the stone
fleet. Therefore, one additional ballast mound remains
elusive and will require additional survey to locate.
 |
|
| Sonogram of ballast mound detected in First Stone Fleet survey area. |
 |
|
| First Stone Fleet survey area showing magnetics and distribution of ballast mounds. |
 |
|
| Bent over copper-alloy fasteners in stern at stone fleet vessel. |
At
the Second
Stone Fleet survey area, one uncharted wreck site was discovered by the
magnetometer and subsequently confirmed by sonar. The sonar
image showed a wreck containing large rocks. Just to the
northeast of the survey block, modern nautical charts marked several
wrecks and obstructions. In an effort to determine any
relationship to the stone fleet, MRD ran side scan sonar over the sites
and detected three wreck sites also bearing large rocks as the first
site. MRD archaeologists and volunteers dove on the sites and
noted the presence of huge stones with some bearing quarrying marks,
copper-alloy fasteners, similar windlass or capstan components, and
large iron structural elements. Based on the size of the
boulders, evidence of quarrying, and proximity to each other, MRD
believes these were lighters or scows used to transport rocks to build
the Charleston Harbor jetties from 1878 to 1895. These wrecks
mostly likely fell victim to one of the hurricanes that struck the area
as the jetties were being built. Historical research of
Charleston newspapers during this time period found a News and Courier
article on damages sustained during the hurricane of 25 August 1885
included the sinking of four lighters loaded with stone by Howlett
& Company, the contractors for the jetties.
Archaeological evidence suggests that these rock-laden wrecks represent
the remains of these lighters from the private contractor’s
fleet. Investigating the shoreline in front Fort Moultrie,
which had been shored up with rocks during the 1870s reveals stones
with similar quarrying patterns as those found on the wrecks.
More research is needed to solidify the identity of these wrecks and
their connection with the jetty project.
Georgiana—Mary
Bowers Shipwreck Complex
The
Scottish-built blockade runner Georgiana
was a single screw iron-hull
vessel that measured 205 feet in length, 25 feet in width, 14 feet in
draft, and 519 tons burthen. En route to Charleston on its
maiden voyage, the vessel stopped in Nassau, Bahamas, and loaded
medicines, dry goods, and war material. On the night of 18
March 1863, while slipping between a schooner and steamer off Dewees
Inlet, Federal blockaders spotted the blockade runner in Maffitt’s
Channel and opened a heavy fire that crippled the vessel.
According to reports, the captain had surrendered the vessel, but still
endeavored to get to deeper water to escape. Finding the
rudder head disabled, the vessel was instead driven into shallow waters
approximately ¾-to-1 mile offshore of Long Island (Isle of
Palms). Before abandoning the ship, the crew damaged all
pipes to flood the hold, and then all those on board escaped in the
boats to Long Island. Inspecting the vessel, Union sailors
found several Whitworth and Blakely field artillery pieces and a large
quantity of ammunition. Hopelessly stuck on the shoals, the
Union navy set the vessel on fire with several explosions occurring as
supposed gun powder ignited, causing the masts and rigging to
fall. Confederate gunners at Battery Marshall opened fired on
two Union launches, approximately 3.5-4 miles away, as they departed
the wreck. Reports in the Charleston Courier
state that the
captain of the vessel and several soldiers later went to investigate
the wreck but found several blockaders surrounding the wreck.
Noticing the men on the beach, the Union ships opened fire and riddled
the wreck, extinguishing Confederate hopes of salvaging the sunken
vessel. Over the following days, Union crews salvaged various
items from the wreck including Enfield rifles, bayonets, battle axes,
sabers and other sundry goods.
On
the night of
31 August 1864, Mary
Bowers, a Scottish-built blockade runner,
endeavoring to enter Charleston Harbor struck and stuck on the remains
of Georgiana.
The 226 feet long, 25 feet wide, 10.5 foot
draft, 750-ton side-wheel steamer had made several blockading ventures
prior to sinking off Long Island. Recently departed from
Bermuda, the vessel carried primarily coal in the bunkers, hold, and on
deck. The collision rendered a large opening in the hull’s
bottom causing the steamer to sink in a few moments. The
Union blockaders only discovered the shipwreck at daylight.
Investigating the unknown shipwreck, Union sailors found a 16-year old
boy aboard who told them he knew of no cargo other than coal, and that
the steamer was to leave laden with cotton bound for Halifax,
Canada. Mary
Bower’s officers, crew, and passengers had
abandoned the wreck. The sailors removed several items from
the shipwreck including a bell, binnacle, and several kedge
anchors.
The two sites
were rediscovered in 1968 by E. Lee Spence, a local Charleston diver,
who enlisted the aid of a shrimper to help him find the two blockade
runners. Spence and a group of investors subsequently formed
Shipwrecks, Incorporated to salvage the Georgiana and Mary Bowers wreck
site. The finding and ensuing desire to salvage the wrecks
spurred the first South Carolina legislation aimed at managing historic
shipwrecks in state waters. The company obtained the first
salvage license administered by the South Carolina Department of
Archives and History in 1969, which agreed on a division of the
artifacts: 25% for the state and 75% for the salvors. The
salvors found sections of Georgiana’s hull standing over 2.7 m (9 ft)
off the seafloor. Under the license, the company recovered
numerous relics from the sites including Enfield rifles, bullets,
Blakely shells, glass buttons, brass pins, and a variety of
ceramics. They also recovered one Whitworth gun under the
hull of Mary Bowers which rested atop Georgiana. Over the
years, sport divers licensed under SCIAA’s Hobby Diving program began
visiting the site and recovered numerous artifacts including a number
of Blakely shells, hundreds of shirt or collar pins, and thousands of
buttons.
Initial MRD
remote sensing investigation of the remains occurred on 8 August 2001
as part of the Naval Wreck Survey using funds from a Department of
Defense Legacy Resource Management Program grant administered by the
Naval History and Heritage Command. The remains of the
vessels are approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) offshore of Isle of
Palms. The shipwreck complex is marked on current NOAA
nautical charts. The magnetometer detected a large complex
magnetic anomaly and the sonar revealed the criss-cross pattern of the
two iron-hulled shipwrecks. The longitudinal axis of
Georgiana
runs northwest to southeast, while Mary
Bowers lies along a
northeast to southwest axis. The intersection of the wrecks
structure is confused, but their bow and stern areas are
identifiable. Georgiana’s
bow is the northwest end, and Mary
Bower’s bow is the southwest end. The sonograms also
revealed the
frames of each vessel, along with a couple of boilers.
 |
|
| Sonogram of the wrecked blockade runners Georgiana and Mary Bowers. |
On 30 March and 1
April 2010, MRD archaeologists and volunteers dove on the remains of
the two wrecked blockade runners. The objectives of the dives
were to examine and to obtain underwater video of the wrecks.
Depth of water was about 20 ft (6.0 m). Visibility at the
bottom near the bows of the wrecks was poor, several inches at best,
due to a constant surge and entrapment of fine sediments in this
area. The forward area of both wrecks protruded above the
bottom about 2-3 ft (0.6-0.9 m) Moving to the higher reaches
of the wrecks, that is the boilers and the amidships starboard hull
section of Georgiana,
both of which ascended to a height of over 10 ft
(3.0 m) above the bottom, improved visibility significantly.
Inside the wreck, frames of both vessels were evident, with frame
spacing of approximately 1.6 ft (0.5 m) in Georgiana and 2 ft
(0.6 m)
in Mary Bowers.
At the overlap between the two wrecks, the
Mary Bowers
hull rested about 4 ft (1.2 m) or so above the bottom of
Georgiana’s
interior. No artifacts were encountered during
the dives.
These
two wrecked
blockade runners attest to the presence of the Union blockade in this
area of the battlefield. Their attempts to evade the
blockaders to the north and to hug the friendly shore fell afoul of the
dangers of this route, namely shallow waters, although Georgiana’s
actions were precipitated by effective cannon fire. As noted
above concerning the Second Stone Fleet, while the remnants of the
stone fleet were not found, the occurrence of these two shipwrecks,
along with the nearby wrecked blockade runner Constance, at this
location supports the belief that they are close by. And
while the Second Stone Fleet effectiveness as a deterrent to using the
Maffitt’s/Beach Channel to enter Charleston Harbor may have been
marginal, the presence of the sunken vessels along with the floating
vessels, made any voyage into Charleston Harbor potentially disastrous.
Patapsco
Launched in
Wilmington, Delaware on 27 September 1862, the 1,875-ton
single-turreted ironclad USS Patapsco
was a Passaic-class
monitor. The monitor had an overall length of 241 feet,
overall beam of 46 feet, depth of 11.1 feet, and a draft of 11.1
feet. Patapsco
was originally armed with a 15-inch smoothbore
cannon and a 150-pounder Parrott rifle. In October of 1864,
two 12-pounders were added to the armament as deck guns to assist in
its blockading duties at the entrance to Charleston Harbor.
The vessel was commissioned on 2 January 1863, commanded by Daniel
Ammen, and assigned to the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron
(SABS).
As part of the
blockading forces of the SABS, the monitor participated in the
bombardment Fort McAllister near Savannah, Georgia, on the Ogeechee
River in early March 1863. On 7 April 1863, at the much
anticipated naval attack on Charleston Harbor, Patapsco was the
fourth
monitor in line. Patapsco
began receiving the concentrated
fire of the Confederate batteries and forts at the throat of the harbor
and sustained several heavy blows to the turret. Inspection
of the monitor after the battle determined that 47 projectiles had
struck the vessel, especially injuring the smokestack.
Following the attack, the monitor assisted in the combined operations
to take Morris Island, especially concentrating its firepower on
Battery Wagner. Along with USS New Ironsides and
the other
monitors, Patapsco
periodically ventured off Cummings Point, Morris
Island to engage Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie and the other batteries
on Sullivan's Island. An important role of the monitors after
the fall of Morris Island in the fall of 1863 was the enforcement of
the blockade. Stationed off Cummings Point, the monitors
formed the inside blockade to thwart the entrance and exit of blockade
runners at the throat of the harbor.
 |
|
| Monitor USS Patapsco firing on Fort Moultrie. |
On the night of
15 January 1865, Patapsco
was the lead picket monitor and tasked to
cover scout and picket boats that were sweeping the channel for
obstructions and torpedoes. Accompanied by an array of launches and
tugs, the monitor floated into the harbor on a flood tide up to a line
between Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie. Then the flotilla steamed or
were towed back out towards the harbor entrance. The monitor kept its
bow pointed out to sea as it drifted stern-first towards the inner
harbor. They did this maneuver three times. On the third trip, and
despite the precautions of deploying netting around the monitor and
having nearby vessels dragging for torpedoes, Patapsco hit a
torpedo
and sank in less than a minute. The captain and those standing on the
deck and turret survived, numbering 43 crewmembers, while those below
decks, except three, totaling 62 perished. Apparently the explosion
occurred at or near the port side ward room, or about 30 feet from the
bow. Despite starting the pumps, Patapsco’s
forward area quickly filled
with water and the order to abandon ship was given. The vessel went
down bow first, throwing the stern high in the air for an instant
before going under, with only the smokestack projecting out of the
water. Captain Stephen Quackenbush stated that everybody believed the
torpedoes were positioned further into the harbor, and that the crew
was not in jeopardy by these maneuvers. A drenched survivor reportedly
remarked, “We were told to dredge for torpedoes, and nobody need cry
because we found one”. After the abandonment of Charleston, Union navy
divers recovered thirteen bodies of the victims drowned at the time of
the sinking of the monitor Patapsco.
The bodies were buried on James
Island.
In
1870, the Monitor Wrecking Company from New York City was awarded a
contract by the US Treasury Department to salvage Patapsco and other
shipwrecks in the harbor. By the summer of 1870, the company had
successfully raised portions of the monitor. A survey of Charleston
Harbor in the early 1870s was conducted by Captain William Ludlow, US
Army Corps of Engineers. Ludlow found the wreck of Patapsco partially
blasted by the wreckers with 15 feet of water over it. A subsequent
salvage contract with Benjamin Maillefert a year later
ordered a depth of 25 feet mean low water over the wreck of
the
monitor. Maillefert was to receive the proceeds from auctioning the
salvaged materials from the monitor. At the close of the fiscal year
1871-1872, salvage operations had reduced the wreck to a depth of 19
feet. When Maillefert began operations, he reported that the pilothouse
and the deck over the engine-house had been removed and the turret
partially turned over by wreckers prior to his operations. During the
operations to break up Patapsco,
Maillefert forwarded recovered human
bones to the Army where they were buried at Fort Moultrie. A newspaper
article reported on Maillefert’s operations and described his lighter
discharging a load of sheathing plates, huge bars, cranks, cogs, and
other miscellaneous items. There was also a section of turret about 10
feet by 5 feet and twelve inches thick. The section bore the
indentations of the Confederate projectiles. Another component raised
was the bow consisting of oak about five feet thick and covered with
six inches of iron sheathing.
Initial
MRD remote sensing investigation of the remains occurred in 2001 using
funds from a Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program
grant administered by the Naval History and Heritage Command. Remote sensing
operations on Patapsco
were conducted on 21- 22 February 2001. A
significant magnetic anomaly was detected by the magnetometer and sonar
imaged the wreck of the monitor which lay in a NE-SW axis. As part of
the ABPP project, diving was planned on the remains of the ironclad to
determine the bow and stern, and other identifiable features of the
shipwreck. From 13-17 April 2009, MRD archaeologists and volunteers,
and assisted by the South Carolina Aquarium, conducted reconnaissance
dives to meet our objective of better understanding the remaining
structure of the ironclad. Visibility during this time frame ranged
from several inches with lights at the beginning to several feet by the
end of diving operations. While the current was swift at the surface
and in the water column, once inside the wreck area it became
negligible. Depth of water ranged depending on the tide from 8.5-9.7 m
(28-32 ft).
 |
|
| Sonogram of wreckage of Patapsco. |
Examination
of the wreck provided a great deal of information on the remaining
fabric of the ironclad. The forward most area, or southeast end, is the
bow of the wreck, and has a section of hull protruding approximately a
meter (3 ft) from the bottom along the port side. This area of the hull
was the chain locker. Moving aft from
this point, several 15-inch cannonballs were found slightly exposed in
the sediments. The beams in this area of the wreck are the
remains of the berth deck. They are comprised of iron beams 1.3 cm
(1/2 in) thick and 1.2 m (48 in) high. These would have originally
supported the wooden flooring for the berth deck. Moving through this
area was like trying to do underwater hurdling—but rather than jumping,
cautiously climbing over one floor and landing in the cavity between
two of them, and then proceeding this way until reaching the dredge
pipe amidships. Bottom sediment and disarticulated iron structure filled in the
cavities here and there and covered the hold deck below the berth deck.
Along the southwestern edge of this area was an exposed pipe, which was
interpreted as a ventilation tube based on the plans. Along the
northeastern periphery of this area was a pile of disarticulated iron
components that raised a couple of meters (6 ft) or so into the water
column. Based on the ship’s plan, the dredge pipe spans the area where
the machinery to turn the turret was located. Where the dredge pipe
pierces the port side of the hull, there is a substantial section of
hull that curves down into the sediments. Just aft of this area, a
large, twisted piece of metal plating protruded about 2 m (6 ft) in the
water column. This might be related to a portion of the turret
compartment bulkhead. From this point on, the archaeologists
encountered various disarticulated iron components, mostly small in
nature including a small section of framing. This area of the wreck is
where a coal bunker
was located, so this piece may relate to the bulkhead fabric. Time
limited further investigation of the wreck beyond this point to
determine if the propeller or any integral stern structure existed.
As
mentioned above, the wreck lies with its bow facing out to sea while
the stern points in to the harbor. This corresponds with the last
actions of the ironclad as it floated stern-first to Charleston on the
flood tide and then reaching the Confederate obstructions steamed back
towards Cummings Point, while clearing torpedoes. Upon striking the
torpedo, the ironclad sank rapidly to the bottom with no turning or
twisting motion. The identification of the berth deck confirms that the
south end is the bow of Patapsco,
and the area beyond the dredge pipe
as the stern, emptied of the machinery and boilers which were salvaged
in the 1870s. From a profile view, there are portions of the hull
plating that extend above the berth deck, primarily along the port
side, and it is estimated that approximately 1.6-1.9 m (5-6 ft) from
the keel to the extant hull plating of the wreck exists in the forward
area of the ironclad. Direct observations in the stern area of the
wreck was limited, but based on the plans, it is estimated that
approximately 0.3-0.6 m (1-2 ft) of depth exists from the keel to
extant hull, although in some areas there are sections of the port hull
plating extending beyond the bottom. Salvage operations by Benjamin
Maillefert and the Monitor Wrecking Company were thorough in recovering the main iron components of the
wreck—turret, boilers, machinery, armor belt, and hull decks and
plates, leaving little behind. Besides the remaining ship’s structure,
a couple of 15-inch cannonballs, no personal artifacts were observed in
the wreckage. Despite the severe nature of the salvage operations, the
remains of Patapsco
offer a rare glimpse at the main offensive weapon
used by the Union navy to enforce the blockade and to challenge the
Confederate gauntlet at Charleston Harbor.
Fort Ripley
In early 1862,
work commenced on building a fixed battery on the Middle Ground Shoal,
located between Castle Pinckney and Fort Johnson. Called Battery or
Fort Ripley, as well as the Middle Ground Battery, the fort was
designed to support Fort Moultrie in the event of a bombardment of that
fort, as well as a strong addition to the defense of the city. The
four-squared work rested on timber caissons, ballasted with the rubbish
from the 11-12 December 1861 fire in the city, in a water depth of
eight feet. General Robert E. Lee, then in command of Charleston
defenses, suggested casemating the fort with heavy timber and railroad
iron to strengthen the work, although the engineers did not consider
the work shot proof. By July the fort reportedly had five guns
installed in the defensive structure. A report in 1864 listed Fort
Ripley having one 8-inch Columbiad and one 10-inch Columbiad.
Positioned about 600-700 yards in front of the battery was a double row
of pile obstructions stretching due north from the Middle Ground and
across the Castle Pinckney/Folly Island Channel for half a mile.
Despite its interior position, Federal batteries at Cummings Point
occasionally tossed a few shells at Fort Ripley. After the abandonment
of Charleston by Confederate forces, Union army and navy units began
raising the United States flags over the various military
installations,
including Fort Ripley, where an Union officer remarked that the guns
were in good order, and that one Quaker gun was mounted bearing
southeast.
 |
|
| Drawing of Fort Ripley. |
Today
the remains of Fort Ripley are marked by a navigation sign warning of
the danger of the rock obstruction. During low tide, broken bricks and
ballast stones protrude above the surface to reveal the location of the
fort. On 25 March 2009, MRD conducted a magnetometer and side-scan
sonar survey around the battery. The electronic instruments detected a
number of magnetic and acoustic anomalies around the site. There is a
heavy magnetic concentration at the mound, along with a number of
large, isolated anomalies in the general vicinity. Acoustic data
corresponding with magnetic anomalies revealed several indistinct iron
objects. Sonar data revealed the mound measures at the base about 37 m
(121 ft) from east to west, and 39 m (127 ft) from north to south. On
the western periphery the water at low tide was approximately 12 m (40
ft) deep, while approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) deep on the eastern side.
 |
|
| Brick rubble exposed during low tide at Fort Ripley with Charleston in background. |
In
an effort to identify the sources of the magnetic anomalies and to
determine what else remained of the fort, archaeologists dove at the
site on 23 April 2010. During slack low tide, with exceptionally clear
water down to 12 m (40 ft), the archaeologists circumnavigated the
fort, finding the base composed primarily of ballast rocks, and
further up an admixture of rocks and bricks. Several iron bars were
found accounting for some of the magnetic anomalies detected during the
remotes sensing survey. Moving up the summit, careful examination
revealed the presence of several severely eroded and teredo
navalis-wormhole riddled timbers embedded between the rock
and brick
matrix. The timbers measured approximately 20.3 cm (8 in) in width, and
lengths indeterminable due to their disappearance underneath the rock
and brick overburden. These timbers probably represent the bedding
frames of the caisson used to secure the fort to its underwater
foundation. Nothing else was found on the reconnaissance dive to
suggest its past use as an inner harbor defensive structure.
 |
|
| Eroded wood associated with the crib foundation of Fort Ripley. |
KOCOA
Analysis and Defining Features
A modern military
analysis scheme called KOCOA, a method to understanding the natural,
cultural, and military features of the landscape and their effect on a
battle, provided a framework by which to analyze and interpret the
Charleston Harbor Naval Battlefield. Developed by military experts to
prepare for battle and to study and analyze the aftermath of one, the
KOCOA system considers these components of the landscape crucial to
understanding a battlefield: Key
terrain, Observation
and fields of fire, Concealment
and cover, Obstacles
to movement, and Avenues
of approach and retreat. The NPS advocates applying the KOCOA scheme to
analyze historic battlefields since first using it to re-interpret the
Battle of Gettysburg in early 2000. While the acronym is modern, the
basic underlying military tenets are ages old. This method is mainly
applied to analyzing terrain related to land battles, however, the
suitability of this scheme to naval purposes is particularly useful in
understanding a battle fought in coastal waters. Shoals and channels in
shallow waters off the coasts act as impediments to fleets, in a manner
similar to hills and valleys that constrict the movement of armies.
Battlefields
are generally thought of as engagements lasting for several hours or
days at most—and fought on land. The siege of Charleston Harbor,
however, spanned four years from the Federal surrender of Fort Sumter
in 1861 to the Confederate abandonment of Fort Sumter in 1865—and was
fought on land and sea. Combined Union army and naval forces attempted
to wrest control from the steadfast Confederate defenders to no avail.
Only the anticipated arrival of Sherman from the rear sprung the harbor
open to Union forces. During those four years a number of naval and
combined actions occurred as each antagonist strove to meet their
respective military objectives. Major battle events included the
Confederate ironclad sortie against the blockading fleet on 31 January
1863, the 7 April 1863 Union ironclad attack on Fort Sumter, the Union
capture of Morris Island and reduction of Fort Sumter through combined
operations, and attacks by Confederate semi-submersibles and a
submarine on the blockading fleet. If one were to compress these
actions spanning four years into a day and on a single map, it would
clearly resemble a traditional battlefield with advances,
counter-thrusts, skirmishes, etc., all constrained by the natural,
cultural, and military engineering features present in this maritime
landscape. While these actions occur in temporally isolated incidents,
they are still spatially constrained by the same environmental features.
 |
|
| Routes of naval battle actions fought in Charleston Harbor. |
Each
of the naval actions off Charleston Harbor was fought on the same
battleground and therefore exhibit a number of commonalities to each
other with few exceptions. Most of the battle episodes were fought at
night; in fact all of the Confederate actions were precipitated in the
darkness—blockade running and attacks upon the blockaders. The nature
of the coastal environment of low barrier islands and the limitless
view from the beaches, mastheads, walls of Fort Sumter, and to the
horizon during optimal days necessitated a need for the cloak of
darkness for surprise attacks. This was especially needed in light of
the Confederate spar-torpedo weapon delivery system which required
contact with a vessel. Only the Federal ironclad attacks on the
Confederate batteries were accomplished in the daylight due to their
armor plating, although the obscurity of night was used on occasion.
Another important consideration was the states of the tide—ebb or
flood. The ebb was the preferred tide of the two Confederate vessels
David
and H. L. Hunley
to assist in the motive power to bring them to
the blockaders and then later rely on the flood to withdraw to the
safety of the harbor. Most of the larger ship actions took place on the
flood to permit these vessels to cross the bar and navigate in the
channels, as did blockade runners to lessen the margin of error in
navigating the shallow waters. In the case of the 7 April 1863 ironclad
attack, the ebb was relied upon to draw a disabled Union warship out of
the harbor. The primary avenue of attack and withdrawal was the Main
Ship Channel by both combatants. The Confederate ironclads sortied out
of the harbor from it, and David
and Hunley
in hunt of monitors and New
Ironsides employed the channel as well. All Union naval attacks on the
Confederate fortifications relied on the Main Ship Channel from which
to bombard or to transit to the throat of the harbor to engage Fort
Sumter and the Sullivan’s Island batteries. The only instance of an
offensive action occurring elsewhere is when Hunley used Breach Inlet
to attack the north line of the blockade. Maffitt’s/Beach Channel, used
as the avenue of withdrawal for the Confederate ironclads, was the
primary channel for the blockade runners.
The
locations of the Confederate and Union shipwrecks on the battlefield
attest to the intensity of fighting occurring at the harbor and exhibit
the patterns of the ongoing siege at Charleston. The illustration
clearly shows a pattern to the locations of the Union and Confederate
shipwrecks. The Union vessels are located to the south of the harbor,
reflecting their occupation of Folly Island and Morris Island. The
remains of Housatonic beyond the 18-foot-contour indicate its position
on the line of wooden blockaders attempting to enforce the blockade.
The Stone Fleet locations were both designed to obstruct the two main
routes of the harbor. The two clusters of blockade runners clearly
reveal the main blockading route into and out of Charleston and attest
to the natural and military dangers of navigating that channel. The
Ruby wreck seems to contradict the effective closing of the Main Ship
Channel by the presence of the monitors and the First Stone Fleet but
was in reality just lost in the night that so ably shrouded the vast
majority of blockade runners that successfully ran the Union blockade.
 |
|
| Location of shipwrecks on the naval battlefield. |
Charleston
Harbor Naval Battlefield Boundary
The
purpose of
this project was to delineate the boundary and to identify the defining
features of the Charleston Harbor Naval Battlefield through historical
and archaeological documentation. The boundary was defined through
examining the historical records that determined the battlefield as
comprehended by the combatants stretched along the coastline north from
Dewees Inlet to the south at Stono Inlet, east to just beyond the
18-foot contour line, through the throat of the harbor entrance bounded
by Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie, and to either side of the city on the
Ashley and Cooper Rivers. Within this battlefield the major naval
actions occurred, including the Confederate ironclad sortie on 31
January 1863, the 7 April 1863 ironclad assault, the sinking of
Housatonic
by the H. L. Hunley,
and the enforcement of the blockade.
The archaeological manifestations of the conflict, wrecked blockade
runners, sunken Federal ironclads, the remains of the first successful
combat submarine and victim, provide testimony to the battle events
that occurred within the boundaries of this battlefield. These remnants
of the naval actions were precisely located with DGPS and investigated
through electronic means to determine their scope and extent. Visual
inspection by underwater archaeologists aided in interpreting the
visible features of these sites. Establishing the battlefield boundary
and the presence and distribution of the associated archaeological
components permitted meeting a corollary objective of the project to
determine issues affecting the preservation and protection of the
battlefield.
 |
|
| Boundary and core features of the Charleston Harbor Naval Battlefield. |
There have been significant physical changes to the naval battlefield,
primarily a result of the placement of two jetties to form a more
direct channel through the bar to the port. The natural features of the
ebb-delta complex consisting of the bar and channels have been
completely altered by the construction of the jetties that essentially
eradicated the two primary Civil War-era channels into the harbor: Main
Ship Channel and Maffitt’s/Beach Channel. The beachfront of the islands
of Sullivan’s Island and the south end of the island have accreted
seawards, evidenced by the presence of several buried blockade runners.
Morris Island, however, has suffered from severe erosion south of the
south jetty, with some accretion at Cummings Point. There are still
natural, cultural, and military features a participant from the siege
would recognize, but the built-up environment has also modified the
battlefield with beachfront homes, bridges, and high rises. But one
thing does continue, the port of Charleston has rebuilt itself into an
important transshipment hub in the southeast, and the sea is still an
important front door to the world.
Management
Issues
Shipping
and tourism
play an important part in the economics and quality of life in
Charleston. However, these enterprises also put pressure on the local
environment which in turn affects the archaeological resources residing
in and along the local waters. Increased demands for larger ships to
carry more goods require the port to accommodate these new vessels.
Under the authority of the US Army Corps of Engineers, harbor
maintenance requires constant upkeep and improvement of navigation to
provide safe passage. Development along the shorelines of Sullivan’s,
Isle of Palms, and Folly Islands, along with the natural tendency of
the barrier islands to erode, has prompted beach renourishment using
offshore sand borrow sites to protect public and private investment
along the beachfront. Maintenance dredging, channel widening, and beach
renourishment all have the potential to impact the cultural legacy of
not only Civil War related materials, but also from other historical
periods as well. This project aims to mitigate these varied threats by
accurately locating submerged cultural resources affiliated with the
naval operations during the siege of Charleston. Additionally, the
archaeological remains, combined with historical research, established the core and defining features by which to delineate the
boundary of the battlefield. Determining the battlefield boundaries and
cultural resources will serve to guide short and long-term management
decisions affecting the integrity and preservation of this maritime
battlefield.
Conclusion
The
historical and
archaeological information derived from this project to document the
boundary and cultural remnants of Charleston Harbor served not only to
illuminate the past, but also the present and future of this important
naval battlefield. By delineating the boundary and documenting extant
features, managers charged with the preservation of these nationally
significant cultural resources can use these findings to interpret and
to protect the battlefield. By knowing the natural and cultural
locations of these resources in the present, managers may better
anticipate looming and distant issues surrounding the preservation of
these battlefield vestiges. Two major developmental issues with the
potential to impact the Charleston Harbor Naval Battlefield are
navigation improvement and beach renourishment projects. The continuing
research, educational, and recreational potential of this naval
battlefield requires all interested stakeholders to participate in the
preservation of this unique Civil War legacy.
Acknowledgments
The project and report was made
possible through an American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP)
grant administered by the National Park Service (NPS). Additional
funding was provided by the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology (SCIAA) at the University of South Carolina,
Columbia. A number of institutions and volunteers assisted and
supported the project objective of documenting the naval components
related to the siege of Charleston Harbor during the American Civil War:
Our
sincere thanks go to Kristin McMasters, archaeologist and grant
administrator, January Ruck and the other grant administrators that
followed in her wake, of the National Park Service’s American
Battlefield Protection Program in Washington, DC for their assistance
in preparing and implementing the grant. We also received
material and logistical support from the NPS’s Fort Sumter National
Monument unit in Charleston, especially Bob Dodson, director, and Rick
Dorrance, along with other personnel.
Much
appreciated research assistance was provided by various archivists and
support personnel at the National Archives I and II in Washington, DC,
and College Park, Maryland, and the South Carolina Historical Society
in Charleston.
Special
thanks go to the South Carolina Aquarium for providing use of their
research vessel under the supervision of Arnold Postell, dive safety
officer and aquarist, along with support personnel. The boat
served as an additional platform for diving operations on the remains
of Patapsco.
Dr. Lee Newsom, Penn State University, provided wood analysis of samples from the reported Weehawken torpedo raft.
A
number of volunteers assisted the project during marine remote-sensing
and ground-truthing operations: Andrew Ogburn, William Semple,
Ted Churchill, Dr. Paul Work, Dr. Scott Harris, and Phillip Jones.
Dr.
Jonathan Leader, State Archaeologist, for conducting gradiometer and
ground-penetrating work, along with his volunteers, Bonnie Leader, his
wife, and Randy Burbage.
A
number of internal University of South Carolina administrative units
assisted in preparing the initial grant, namely Jeffery Tipton, grant
administrator, of Sponsored Awards Management. Margeret Binette
and Frenché Brewer of the Office of Media Relations prepared and
organized media relations with Charleston news outlets. SCIAA
director, Dr. Charles Cobb, and business manager, Susan Lowe, provided
grant management guidance and oversight. Dr. Steve Smith,
director of Applied Research, supplied insight of the ABPP grant
preparation and execution, and research information. Maritime
Research Division personnel: Christopher Amer, head, and Lora Holland,
Carleton Naylor, Joseph Beatty III, and Ashley Deming greatly assisted
in implementing the research and field work aspects of the project;
none of which could have been done without them. To them and all
the others—thank you for your efforts and assistance in investigating
the Charleston Harbor Naval Battlefield.
|
|
|