A List of Ten Historical Works that Mention USS Keokuk, Part Two

USS Keokuk, which was designed by Charles W. Whitney, was an ironclad that was built in the second year of the American Civil War. Charles W. Whitney drew the plans for the iron-cased ram while Rear-admiral Joseph Smith, who was reviewing blue-prints on behalf of the Navy Department of the United States of America, approved the design. Smith, thereafter, awarded Whitney with a contract to built the fighting vessel. It was suggested, however, that expensive modifications should be made to the design of the ironclad. Service with the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, at the time in which it was under the command of Rear-admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont, lay on the horizon and the iron-cased ram proceeded towards South Carolina. Lieutenant-commander Alexander Colden Rhind, who would later be promoted to Commander, was appointed as the superior officer onboard the iron-plated warship. A number of ironclads, in the third year of the War of the Rebellion, were being sent to the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron and it was believed that these shot-proof warships could neutralize the fortifications that protected the ports of the Confederate States of America. USS Keokuk, after its arrival at Port Royal, joined a fleet of ironclads and unprotected gunboats that were gathering at the mouth of the North Edisto River. USS Bibb and USS Keokuk, on the 5th of April, deposited a series of buoys along the Charleston Bar. Du Pont, who had been ordered to attack the batteries in Charleston Harbor, ordered his ironclads to cross the Charleston Bar on the following day. USS Keokuk, on the 7th of April, was struck ninety times and pierced nineteen times along the waterline. Rhind, having decided to withdraw his ship to Lighthouse Inlet, was unable to prevent the ironclad from foundering in rough seas. An iron-cased frigate and seven monitors, of the type that John Ericsson had designed, survived the First Battle of Charleston Harbor while USS Keokuk would be remembered as a failed experiment. 

1) A History of the Civil War in the United States; with a Preliminary View of its Causes, and Biographical Sketches of its Heroes. Part Second. by Samuel Mosheim Schmucker.

Samuel Mosheim Schmucker, in the seventeenth chapter of the second volume of A History of the Civil War in the United States, describes the First Battle of Charleston Harbor and its aftermath. It is reported, on page 307, that the United States Navy intended to attack the batteries in Charleston Harbor. A fleet of ironclads, in anticipation of the upcoming naval operation, are claimed to have congregated at Port Royal. It is reported, on page 308, that the United States Army was expected to assist the United States Navy in its assault on the batteries of Charleston Harbor. North Edisto is claimed to have been used as the rendezvous, or meeting place, of the fighting vessels that were assigned to the upcoming naval operation. It is reported that the armada gathered at North Edisto between the last week of March and the first two days of April. Seven monitors and two ironclads, which are identified as USS Keokuk and USS New Ironsides, are claimed to have gathered at North Edisto. USS Keokuk, which is described as the Whitney ironclad, are revealed to have been commanded by Lieutenant-commander A. C. Rhind. Inclement weather, on page 312, is reported to have delayed the offensive actions against Charleston Harbor. On the 3rd of April, 1863, the ironclads and the unprotected gunboats of the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron are reported to have congregated at the mouth of the North Edisto River. An opportunity to cross the Charleston Bar is claimed to have occurred on the 5th of April, 1863, while USS Keokuk and USS Bibb are reported have buoyed the bar on the following day. It is claimed that the ironclads, which are reported to have crossed the Charleston Bar during a flood tide, arrived in the main shipping channel at nine 'o clock in the morning. The pilots of the fleet, whose view is claimed to have been obscured by a slight haze, are reported to have advised the naval commanders to wait for the ebb tide before they advanced upon the fortified batteries that defended Charleston Harbor.

2) Engineer and Artillery Operations against the Defences of Charleston Harbor in 1863; Comprising the Descent upon Morris Island, the Demolition of Fort Sumter, the Reduction of Forts Wagner and Gregg. With Observations on Heavy Ordnance, Fortifications, Etc. by Quincy Adams Gillmore.

Quincy Adams Gillmore, on page 7 of Engineer and Artillery Operations against the Defences of Charleston Harbor in 1863, describes Charleston as a city that was established on a peninsula which was formed by the Ashley River as well as the Cooper River. Morris Island and Sullivan's Island, which are reported to have been situated at a distance of seven-miles from the peninsula, are claimed to have formed the entrance of Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter, which is named as one of the fortifications that had been built in Charleston Harbor before the outbreak of the American Civil War, is reported to have been located at the south side of a navigable channel and is described as a five-faced casemate that was constructed out of bricks. It is claimed that the guns which constituted the armaments of the sea-coast fort were arranged into three tiers, two of which were kept behind embrasures and one of which was installed en barbette, while the foundations of the brick casemate are reported to have been established on a shoal that lay beneath the water. Six 24-pounders, forty-one 32-pounders, ten 8-inch Rodman guns, ten 42-pounders, three 10-inch columbiads and eight 8-inch sea-coast howitzers are claimed to have been captured by the Confederate States Army at the time in which Fort Sumter was surrendered by Major Anderson. Fort Moultrie, on page 9, is reported to have been a brickwork fort that contained one tier of guns. A distance of 1,700-yards is claimed to have existed between Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie. Fort Sumter, on page 11, is claimed to have been attacked by the United States Navy in the third year of the American Civil War. On the 7th of April, 1863, Rear-admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont is reported to have led a fleet of ironclads against the seacoast fort. Success, however, is reported to have eluded Du Pont on that day. USS Keokuk, after it had received a significant amount of damage from the guns of Fort Sumter, is reported to have foundered within the vicinity of Morris Island.

3) The Old Navy and the New by Daniel Ammen.

Rear-admiral Daniel Ammen, towards the end of the twenty-sixth chapter of The Old Navy and the New, describes the first bombardment of Fort Sumter by the United States Navy. Ammen, while holding a lower rank than Rear-admiral, is revealed to have commanded USS Patapsco during the time in which USS Keokuk met its fate at Charleston Harbor. Nine ironclads, on page 372, are reported to have approached Fort Sumter while attempting to avoid the torpedoes that were hidden beneath the water. It is revealed that seven of the nine ironclads, one of which had a torpedo-catcher installed at its bow, were Passaic-class monitors while the remaining two fighting vessels did not mount their batteries in revolving turrets. USS Weehawken, USS Passaic, USS Montauk and USS Patapsco are reported to have formed the first division of ironclads while USS New Ironsides is identified as the flagship. It could be argued that USS New Ironsides, which is described as a broadside ironclad that was armed with fourteen 11-inch guns as well as two 150-pounder rifles, formed a buffer between the two divisions of iron-cased fighting vessels. USS Catskill, USS Nantucket, USS Nahant and USS Keokuk are named as the ironclads that formed the second division. It can be inferred that USS Keokuk, which is described as a so-called ironclad that was riddled by every shot that hit it, was the last fighting vessel in the procession of ironclads. General Beauregard, who is identified as the commander of the defenses of Charleston, is reported to have placed buoys by the navigable channel and it is explained that these buoys enabled the crews of the batteries to determine the range at which to fire their guns at the approaching warships. It is claimed that the ironclads, once they had reached the buoys, encountered a hail of projectiles that was accurate and overwhelming. USS Keokuk, whose protective iron plates were ineffective at stopping missiles, was unable to weather the storm of bolts and shells that descended upon it.  

4) The Soldier in Our Civil War : a Pictorial History of the Conflict, 1861-1865, Illustrating the Valor of the Soldier as Displayed on the Battle-field, Vol. II by Paul Fleury Mottelay and Thomas Campbell-Copeland.

Paul Fleury Mottelay and Thomas Campbell-Copeland, on page 171 of the second volume of The Soldier in our Civil War, describes the bombardment of Fort Sumter by the ironclads of the United States Navy. On the 5th of April, 1863, it is reported that a fleet of Federal warships congregated at the mouth of the North Edisto River. Rear-admiral Du Pont is identified as the commander of this fleet, which is claimed to have included nine monitors and five armoured gunboats, while Fort Sumter is reported to have been the primary objective. It is explained that the United States Army had sent a detachment of 4,000 men to assist the United States Navy in its endeavor. General Truman Seymour, who is claimed to have served as the Chief of Staff of General Hunter, is identified as the commander of the land forces. It is reported that Seymour, whose troops were expected to advance on Morris Island after the ironclads had reduced the forts that were defending Charleston, was provided with an undisclosed number of guns and pontoons. USS Weehawken, USS Passaic, USS Montauk, USS Patapsco, USS New Ironsides, USS Catskill, USS Nantucket, USS Nahant and USS Keokuk are identified as the nine ironclads that were ordered to attack Fort Sumter. Commander Alexander C. Rhind is named as the commander of USS Keokuk while Captain J. F. Green is reported to have been given the command of the reserve squadron. It is claimed that the engagement of the 7th of April, which began at three 'o clock in the afternoon, was triggered when the ironclads entered the range of the batteries of Charleston Harbor. Fort Moultrie, Fort Sumter, Fort Putnam and Fort Beauregard are reported to have subjected the ironclads to a concentrated fire. USS Keokuk, on page 172, is claimed to have received nineteen fatal blows to its hull and is reported to have retired to Lighthouse Inlet at five 'o clock in the afternoon. It is reported that the stricken ironclad, on the following morning, sank at Lighthouse Inlet. 

5) The Life of John Ericsson, Volume II by William Conant Church.

William Conant Church, in the twenty-second chapter of the second volume of The Life of John Ericsson, compares the monitor to the battleship. It may be deduced that Church, when discussing the battleship, was referring to warships that mounted their guns in a broadside arrangement. USS Keokuk, on page 62, is described as one of two ironclads that were submitted in competition to the Monitor-class of vessels. Fragments of iron are reported to have been driven into the interior spaces of the hull of USS Galena, which is identified as the other ironclad that did not conform to the design principles of John Ericsson, after it was perforated by the projectiles of the Confederate States Army. USS Keokuk, on the 7th of April, is reported to have participated in an attack upon Charleston while A. C. Rhind is identified as the commander of the ironclad. Rhind, according to Church, claimed that his ship was engaged with the batteries within Charleston Harbor for thirty-five minutes. It is claimed that the ironclad, which is reported to have been struck by ninety projectiles, was pierced on nineteen occasions along the waterline. Several projectiles are claimed to have penetrated the turrets of the warship and it is implied that these turrets were different to those which were installed on the Ericsson batteries that had accompanied USS Keokuk into battle. Rough seas, that allowed water to enter the perforations in the lower reaches of the hull of the fighting vessel, are reported to have caused the ironclad to founder on the day that followed the fighting in Charleston Harbor. Church appears to be arguing that monitors, which housed their batteries in revolving turrets that were protected by thick plates of iron, were superior to the other types of ironclad that were deployed in the American Civil War. USS Keokuk, as demonstrated by its performance at Charleston Harbor, had been unable to withstand the fire of the batteries that had been entrusted to defend the city from the depredations of the United States Navy. 

6) The Records of Living Officers of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Fifth Edition, Revised with Numerous Additions by Lewis Randolph Hamersly.

Lewis Randolph Hamersly, on page 26 as well as page 27 of The Records of Living Officers of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, includes an entry about Alexander Colden Rhind. It is reported that Rhind, who is claimed to have been born in New York, had relocated to the State of Alabama at the time in which he joined the United States Navy. On the 3rd of September, 1838, Rhind is reported to have been appointed to the United States Navy from Alabama while USS Ohio is identified as the first of the ships that he served onboard. Rhind is reported to have joined the crew of USS Cyane, USS Warren and USS Macedonia during the initial stages of his naval career. It is reported that Rhind, from 1844 until 1845, was present at the Naval School at Philadelphia and was promoted to Midshipman. USS Washington, which is described as a brig, is identified as the ship that Rhind served onboard for the duration of the Mexican-American War. Rhind, during the Antebellum Era, is revealed to have been attached to the United States Office of Coast Survey for a significant part of his naval career. USS Water Witch, USS Ewing, USS Saint Mary's, USS John Adams and USS Constellation are identified as the ships that Rhind served onboard while he held the rank of Master as well as Lieutenant. It is reported that Rhind, during the first year of the American Civil War, commanded USS Crusader and was attached to the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron. On the 16th of July, 1862, Rhind is reported to have been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-commander and is claimed to have been appointed to the captaincy of USS Seneca as well as USS Keokuk in the same year. Rhind is reported to have been promoted to the rank of Commander on the 2nd of January, 1863, and is claimed to have commanded USS Keokuk during the events of the 7th of April. It is claimed that USS Keokuk, which is reported to have been struck ninety times and perforated nineteen times at the waterline, sank at half-past seven in the morning.

 

7) The Pictorial History of the Civil War in the United States of America, Volume 3 by Benson John Lossing.

Benson John Lossing, who dedicates the sixth chapter of the third volume of The Pictorial History of the Civil War in the United States of America to the Siege of Knoxville as well as the military operations that occurred along the coast of the Carolinas and Georgia, discusses the investment of Charleston by the armed forces of the United States of America. It is revealed, on page 193, that USS Keokuk and USS Bibb deposited buoys along the entrance of Charleston Harbor. On the 5th of April, 1863, the ships are reported to have buoyed the bar of Charleston Harbor while they were under the command of Lieutenant-commander Alexander C. Rhind and Mr. Boutelle. It is reported that Boutelle, who is identified as the commander of USS Bibb, worked for the United States Coast Survey. It is possible that Rhind, prior to the events of the 7th of April, was chosen to buoy the Charleston Bar because of his pre-war experience of surveying the coast. Five batteries are claimed to have guarded the northern of margin of Charleston Harbor while Fort Sumter, which is reported to have guarded the entrance of the inner harbour, is revealed to have been situated between Sullivan's Island and Morris Island. Nine ironclads, of which USS Keokuk is claimed to have been the last in the line of procession, are reported to have been deployed against the batteries of Charleston Harbor. Rhind, who is revealed to have remained in command of CSS Keokuk on the day of the battle, is claimed to have positioned his ironclad within five-hundred yards of Fort Sumter. Nineteen of the ninety projectiles that struck the iron-cased ram, some of which are reported to have created holes that were eighteen-inches in diameter, are claimed to have perforated the fighting vessel along the waterline. Rhind, after a brief engagement with the batteries of Fort Sumter, is reported to have withdrawn the iron-cased ram to Morris Island. It is reported that the ironclad, at eight 'o clock in the evening, sank within the vicinity of Lighthouse Inlet. 

8) The Naval History of the Civil War by David Dixon Porter.

Admiral David Dixon Porter, who mentions USS Keokuk in the thirty-second chapter and the thirty-third chapter of The Naval History of the Civil War, describes the role that ironclads played in the War of the Rebellion. Gideon Welles, on page 354, is reported to have served as the Secretary of the Navy during the administration of Abraham Lincoln. It is reported, on page 365, that Welles believed that the United States Navy should capture Charleston. Porter, who describes Charleston as the original seat of insurrection and disunion, claims that preparations were made to reduce the defensive works that protected the city from the encroachments of a hostile armada. It is reported that Welles believed in the ability of ironclads, with their supposed immunity to shell and shot, to reduce the defensive works in Charleston Harbor. Rear-admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont, whose squadron is claimed to have been situated outside of the Charleston Bar, is reported to have received seven ironclads from the Navy Department. USS Keokuk is revealed to have been among the iron-cased fighting vessels that were entrusted to maintain the blockade of Charleston and, if circumstances dictated it, to neutralize the fortified batteries that protected the city. It is claimed, on page 374, that the ironclads proceeded along the Main Ship Channel during the engagement of the 7th of April. USS Keokuk and an undisclosed number of monitors, at a distance that ranged from 550-yards to 800-yards, are reported to have engaged Fort Sumter. It is claimed, on page 376, that USS Keokuk fired its guns on three occasions while it was subjected to the concentric fire of the sea-coast batteries. Commander Rhind, in order to prevent USS Keokuk from sinking, is reported to have withdrawn from the engagement. It is claimed that the ironclad, despite the efforts of its commander, foundered on the following morning. The loss of USS Keokuk, on page 377, is reported to have persuaded the Navy Department to build more monitors.

9) Report of the Secretary of the Navy in Relation to Armored Vessels by the United States Navy Department.

Gideon Welles, on pages 54 and 55 of Report of the Secretary of the Navy in Relation to Armored Vessels, informs Rear-admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont that two more ironclads would be added to the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron. On the 6th of March, 1863, Du Pont was notified that USS Nantucket and USS Keokuk would be arriving at Port Royal. Welles informed Du Pont that USS Montauk, USS Weehawken, USS New Ironsides, USS Passaic, USS Nahant, USS Patapsco, USS Catskill, USS Nantucket and USS Keokuk would participate in an upcoming attack on Charleston as well as Savannah. It may be inferred, therefore, that Charleston was the primary target and Savannah was the secondary target. Welles ordered three ironclads, under the presumption that they had survived the engagements at Charleston and Savannah, to proceed towards Hampton Roads while the other protected fighting vessels were instructed to head towards Pensacola. USS Passaic, USS Montauk and USS Keokuk are identified as the three ironclads that Welles ordered to relocate to Hampton Roads in the wake of the upcoming naval operations. Commander Alexander Colden Rhind, on page 56, presents Du Pont with a list of the casualties that the crew of USS Keokuk had sustained during the events of the 7th of April. It is reported that sixteen mariners, including Rhind, were wounded during the engagement between USS Keokuk and the fortified batteries. Rhind, on page 74, claims that USS Keokuk received the sustained fire of Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter while the ironclad was positioned at a distance of 550-yards from the brickwork casemate. It is reported that the iron-cased ram, during a thirty-minute engagement with the sea-coast batteries, was struck ninety times and pierced nineteen times along the line of the water. A port shutter, on one of the turrets of the ironclad, is claimed to have been shot away during the battle while the carriage of the forward gun is reported to have been disabled by a projectile.

10) Memorial of Charles W. Whitney, for Relief, in Building the Iron-Clad Battery “Keokuk”, 25 Per Cent. Larger Than Agreed Upon, When Price Was Named, And For Which No Compensation Has been Paid by Charles W. Whitney.

Memorial of Charles W. Whitney, for Relief, in Building the Iron-Clad Battery "Keokuk", 25 Per Cent. Larger than Agreed Upon, when Price was Named, and for which No Compensation had been Paid is a compilation of legal documents which argue that the Navy Department of the United States of America owed money to a military contractor. Whitney, in his letter to the Honourable Gentlemen of the Senate and the House of Representatives, identifies himself as the contractor who built USS Keokuk for the United States Navy. On the 15th of January, 1868, Whitney argued that the Navy Department had not compensated him for the additional work that had been performed on the ironclad. Whitney, on page 4, names the sum of money that he had received for modifying the iron-cased ram and states the amount of money that he believed he was owed for the alterations that were performed on the gunboat. It is claimed that Whitney had received $7,672.61 above the price that had been agreed for the construction of the ironclad while it is argued that the contractor was owed $61,793.57 for the additional work. Whitney, who claims that he had increased the tonnage and and power-to-weight ratio of the warship by 25%, argues that the modifications were performed with the agreement of the Navy Department. It is reported that Whitney, by performing the alterations to the ironclad, fell into debt. Rear-admiral Joseph Smith, on page 5, is reported to have awarded Whitney with the contract to build the gunboat. Whitney, on page 13, describes the circumstances under which he received the contract from the Navy Department. On 25th of March, 1862, Whitney is reported to have been awarded the contract to construct the gunboat and it is claimed that he was expected to complete the fighting vessel within 120 days. Smith, on page 14, is reported to have ordered the gunboat to be modified. Norman W. Wheeler, on page 18, identifies himself as the engineer that constructed the machinery which powered the ironclad.