A List of Ten Books in which CSS Atlanta is Named
1) A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital. Vol. I. by J. B. Jones, Clerk in the War Department of the Confederate States Government; Author of "Wild Western Scenes," Etc. Etc.
John Beauchamp Jones, on page 13 of the first volume of A Rebel War Clerk's Diary at the Confederate States Capital, claims that he had been the editor of Southern Monitor before the outbreak of the American Civil War. On the 8th of April, 1861, Jones announced his intention to migrate to the Confederate States of America. Jones reveals that he was residing in Burlington, which is situated in the State of New Jersey, in the days that preceded the Battle of Fort Sumter. It is reported, on pages 36 and 37, that Jones was employed as a clerk at the Department of War of the Confederate States of America. Jefferson Davis, who was the President of the Southern Confederacy, is claimed to have used his influence to secure the position for the former newspaper editor. On the 19th of May, 1861, Jones is reported to have begun his career as a clerk. Stephen Russell Mallory, on page 43, is identified as the Secretary of the Navy of the Confederate Republic. It is reported, on page 44, that the capital of the Southern Confederacy was moved from Montgomery to Richmond. An unnamed ironclad, on page 353, is reported to have fought two blockading vessels within the vicinity of Savannah. It is claimed, however, that the man-of-war struck its colours after an engagement that lasted for a duration of thirty-minutes. News of the defeat is reported to have arrived at Richmond by the 18th of June, 1863, and it is revealed that the engagement had occurred on the previous day. It is argued that the public, if the rumours of defeat were substantiated, would have preferred it if Mallory had been onboard the ironclad at the time of its capture. Jones, on page 354, mentions the loss of CSS Atlanta but does not provide the name of the man-of-war that captured it. Mallory, to paraphrase Jones, was in bad odour for ordering CSS Atlanta to attack two Federal steamers. It appears, therefore, that the Navy Department and the War Department disagreed about the manner in which the war was being conducted.
2) A Short History of the War of Secession, 1961-1865 by Rossiter Johnson
Rossiter Johnson, who dedicates the nineteenth chapter of A Short History of the War of Secession to the Siege of Charleston, mentions the efforts that were made to raise the blockade of Savannah. Rear-admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont, on page 309, is reported to have led nine ironclads in an attack against the batteries that protected Charleston Harbor. It is reported that the National vessels, as Johnson describes the fighting ships of the United States Navy, included seven monitors as well as an ironclad ram and an iron-plated frigate. On the 7th of April, 1863, the batteries that were operated by the Confederate States Army are claimed to have fought the shot-proof fighting vessels that belonged to the United States Navy. It is reported, on page 310, that the obstructions that had been placed in the navigable channels detained the men-of-war beneath the batteries. Questions, therefore, would have to be asked about the abilities of shot-proof fighting vessels to overcome submarine obstacles and reduce harbour defenses. It is claimed, on page 311, that USS Keokuk succumbed to its injuries on the morning that followed the First Battle of Charleston Harbor. Du Pont, whose reputation may have suffered from the events of the 7th and 8th of April, is reported to have vindicated himself in the months that followed the defeat. CSS Atlanta, which is described as a Confederate ironclad that had been converted from an English blockade-runner, is claimed to have been built to raise the blockade of Charleston. It is reported that the ladies of Savannah had funded the construction of the ironclad, which is claimed to have taken a duration of fourteen months to build, via the sale of their jewelry. On the morning of the 17th of June, 1863, USS Weehawken is claimed to have damaged CSS Atlanta with its eleven-inch guns and fifteen-inch guns. It is reported, on page 312, that CSS Atlanta was taken as a prize and exhibited at Philadelphia. CSS Atlanta, like USS Keokuk, had succumbed to the shots of its adversaries.3) A War Diary of Events in the War of the Great Rebellion. 1863-1865. by George H. Gordon.
A War Diary of Events in the War of the Great Rebellion, which covers the years from 1863 until 1865 and that was written by George H. Gordon, contains information about the battle in which CSS Atlanta was captured by two ironclads. Gordon is described as a late Colonel of the Second Massachusetts Infantry, a Brigadier-general and a Brevet Major-general of United States volunteers during the American Civil War. It is claimed, on page 173, that USS Roanoke was armed with eleven-inch and fifteen-inch guns that were encased in iron-plated turrets. CSS Atlanta is reported to have succumbed to the effects of a fifteen-inch gun, which is described as a formidable weapon, that was fired by a different warship but no other information is provided about the extent of the damage that the projectiles inflicted upon the iron-cased ram. Gordon, on pages 362 and 363, describes an event in which USS Dictator arrived at Hampton. Commodore John Rodgers, at the time in which the ironclad travelled from New York to Hampton, is reported to have commanded the monitor. Rodgers, who is identified as the naval officer who captured CSS Atlanta, is claimed to have taken Gordon on a guided tour of USS Dictator and is reported to have demonstrated the working of its steam-engines. CSS Atlanta, which is described as a Rebel gunboat, is claimed to have been captured in the vicinity of the Savannah River. It is claimed, on page 364, that Rodgers informed Gordon of the manner in which the fifteen-inch guns were loaded. Gordon, despite expressing his admiration at the manner in which the artillery pieces were loaded, does not explain the mechanism by which the guns received their charges or projectiles. It is reported, on page 428, that Rodgers was a Captain at the time in which he defeated CSS Atlanta and it is implied that he received prize money for the capture of the ironclad.
4) Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. Vol. CIX. by Various Authors.
An eighteen-page article about the British Navy, which appears in the one-hundred and ninth volume of Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, contains information about the capture of CSS Atlanta at the Battle of Wassaw Sound. It is argued, on page 358, that the technological innovations which changed the nature of naval warfare were not a substitute for the courage of the mariners who served onboard warships. Armour-plates, to paraphrase the author, do not constitute a man-of-war and it is asserted that ironclads can not form a fleet. It it claimed that it is the quality of the sailors that serve onboard fighting vessels, rather than the state of naval technology, which determines the outcome of naval battles. A list of warships, which appears on page 359, reveals that the British Navy was equipped with fifty-one ironclads. It is suggested, on page 360, that advances in the design of armour-piecing projectiles had rendered the iron-plated fighting vessel obsolete. Broadside ironclads which were capable of travelling at a speed of fourteen-knots per hour, however, are reported to have been suitable for the protection of commercial shipping. Explosive shells and rifled artillery, on page 364, are claimed to have changed the conditions under which mariners fought during naval engagements. It is reported that the bursting of a shell within a confined space, as would have existed on the gundeck of an ironclad, had a demoralizing effect upon the crews of warships. USS Weehawken, which is identified as a monitor of the United States Navy, is claimed to have struck CSS Atlanta with five projectiles. It is reported that USS Weehawken was armed with a fifteen-inch gun, which fired 440-pound projectiles, during the engagement. CSS Atlanta, which is described as a Confederate broadside ironclad, is claimed to have suffered seventeen casualties during the battle while an additional forty mariners are reported to have been incapacitated by the impact of the projectile stroking the armour-plates of the casemate.
5) Hand Book of the United States Navy: Being a Compilation of all the Principle Events in the History of Every Vessel of the United States Navy. From April, 1861, to May, 1864. compiled and arranged by B. S. Osbon.
Bradley Sillick Osbon, on pages 14 and 15 of the volume of Handbook of the United States Navy that was published in 1864, describes CSS Atlanta as an ironclad that was equipped with a battery of six guns. The tonnage of the iron-cased ram is reported to have been 1,006-tons. USS Nahant and USS Weehawken, the former of which is claimed to have been placed in reserve, are reported to have captured CSS Atlanta during the Battle of Warsaw Sound. It is claimed that the ironclad was a modification of CSS Fingal, which is reported to have run the blockade of Savannah after the capture of Port Royal, and it may be inferred that the merchantman had been unable to navigate the sea lines of communication which allowed the Confederate States of America to trade with Europe. CSS Atlanta, as CSS Fingal became known, is claimed to have been captured on the 17th of June. It is explained that the ironclad, after it had been condemned as a prize, entered the United States Navy and joined the James River Squadron. USS Nahant, on pages 145, is described as an ironclad that was constructed at Boston during the second year of the American Civil War. It is reported that a monitor of the Passaic-class, whose tonnage is claimed to have been 844-tons, was equipped with a battery of two guns. CSS Atlanta, on page 146, is described as a Rebel ironclad ram that was captured by USS Weehawken on the 17th of June. It is reported USS Nahant, which is claimed to have attacked the batteries that were installed on Morris Island at a later date, was present at the time in which its sister ship captured CSS Atlanta on the estuary of the Wilmington River. USS Weehawken, on page 267, is identified as the ironclad that claimed CSS Atlanta as a prize. It is reported that USS Weehawken, at Warsaw Sound, fired five shots at its adversary. CSS Atlanta, whose iron plates appear to have been unable to stop the projectiles of the Passaic-class monitor, is claimed to have surrendered within the space of fifteen-minutes.
6) Historical Record of the City of Savannah. by F. D. Lee and J. L. Agnew.
Frederick David Lee and J. L. Agnew, on page 86 of Historical Record of the City of Savannah, describe the circumstances in which CSS Atlanta fought two Ericsson batteries on the coast of Chatham County. General Hugh Weedon Mercer, at the time in which the ironclads fought one another at Warsaw Sound, is claimed to have been in command of the military forces that were defending Savannah. It is reported that the Confederate States Navy had made a sincere effort to transform CSS Atlanta, which is described as an ironclad ship, into a formidable fighting vessel. USS Nahant and USS Weehawken are identified as the men-of-war that fought CSS Atlanta, which is reported to have initiated the battle, at Warsaw Sound. It is claimed that the Battle of Warsaw Sound occurred in the July of 1863, rather than the June of 1863, and it is reported that CSS Atlanta ran aground on two occasions. USS Nahant and USS Weehawken, which are described as ironclad monitors, are claimed to have been armed with 15-inch guns which they discharged within close range of their opponent. It is reported that the Battle of Warsaw Sound lasted for a duration of sixteen-minutes, rather than the fifteen-minutes which are reported in other sources, and resulted in CSS Atlanta sustaining a total of sixteen casualties among its crew. Captain Webb, whose decision to surrender is described as wise, is named as the commander of the iron-cased ram. It is explained, on page 87, that the ironclad began its career as a blockade-runner. Captain Edward C. Anderson, who is claimed to have become the Mayor of Savannah after the American Civil War had reached its conclusion, is reported to have commanded the merchantman during its inbound journey. CSS Atlanta, during its career as a blockade-runner, is claimed to have been known as CSS Fingal and its reported to have run the blockade of Savannah. Munitions of war and other valuable goods, to paraphrase the authors, were delivered to the city at the beginning of the conflict.
7) The Japan Weekly Mail: A Review of Japanese Commerce, Politics, Literature, and Art. No. I, Vol I. by Various Authors.
Captain James Dunwoody Bulloch, on pages 19 and 20 of the first issue of the first volume of The Japan Weekly Mail, is identified as an officer of the Confederate States Navy who procured blockade-runners as well as warships from foreign contractors. On the 5th of January, 1884, the newspaper published a review of the two-volume memoir of the American Civil War that Bulloch had composed. Bulloch, to paraphrase the author, is described as the officer that was selected by the Confederate authorities to organize and equip their naval demonstrations from abroad. It is reported that the Southern States of America, after it had seceded from the American Union, lacked the resources that it required to prosecute a war. Military supplies, in order for the Southern States of America to win its independence, had to be obtained from elsewhere. It is reported that the Confederate States Navy, at the beginning of the War of Secession, lacked fighting vessels while the industrial capacity to built ships and marine engines is claimed to have been insufficient to meet demands. Bulloch, who is reported to have arrived in the United Kingdom in the June of 1861, is claimed to have found it difficult to procure hulls and naval supplies. It is explained that the Foreign Enlistment Act prevented military contractors that operated within the United Kingdom from equipping, furnishing, fitting out or arming warships that belonged to belligerent powers. Warships, according to British law, could not be sold to the Confederate States Navy. Bulloch, while he was awaiting the completion of CSS Alabama and CSS Florida, is reported to have commanded SS Fingal during its first transatlantic voyage. It is claimed that the blockade-runner, after its arrival at Savannah, was converted into an ironclad. CSS Atlanta, which is referred to as CSS Atalanta in the review, is reported to have been captured at a later date. USS Nahant and USS Passaic, rather than USS Weehawken, are identified as the fighting vessels that seized the iron-plated ram.
8) The Diplomatic History of the War for the Union, Being the Fifth Volume of the Works of William H. Seward. edited by George E. Baker.
The Diplomatic History of the War for the Union, which comprises the fifth volume of the new edition of The Works of William H. Seward, was published in 1884 and edited by George E. Baker. CSS Atlanta, on page 108, is described as the most formidable ironclad to have existed in the Confederate States Navy. It is reported that the iron-cased ram, on the 17th of June, descended the Wilmington River and sought battle with the fighting vessels that were blockading the estuary. USS Nahant and USS Weehawken, which are described as national ironclads, are identified as the men-of-war that were waiting for the iron-cased ram on the estuary of the Wilmington River. Captain John Rodgers, who appears to have been the senior officer during the engagement of the 17th of June, is named as the commander of USS Weehawken while USS Nahant is claimed to have been commanded by Commander John Downes. CSS Atlanta, whose commanding officer is not named, is reported to have fired the first shot of the battle. It is claimed that the ironclad launched a rifled projectile at USS Weehawken at four 'o clock and fifty-four minutes in the morning, or six-minutes to five 'o clock in the morning, but it is reported that the rifle-bolt missed its target. CSS Atlanta, whose opening shot is claimed to have crossed the stern of USS Weehawken and landed near USS Nahant, is reported to have run aground before its adversaries were able to reply to its fire. It is claimed that USS Weehawken, at fifteen-minutes past five 'o clock in the morning and at a range of three-hundred yards from CSS Atlanta, fired its first shot of the battle. CSS Atlanta, which is reported to have been struck by four of the five projectiles that USS Weehawken launched in its direction, is claimed to have surrendered to the blockading vessels at thirty-minutes past five 'o clock in the morning. It would have taken thirty-six minutes, from the moment that CSS Atlanta fired its first shot until the time in which it raised the white flag, for USS Weehawken to subdue its adversary.
9) The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Volume II. by Jefferson Davis.
Jefferson Davis, on page 205 of the second volume of The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, claims that the harbour defenses of Savannah had been entrusted to Commodore Josiah Tattnall. It is reported that Tattnall, while he was in command of the Savannah Squadron, had three fighting vessels placed at his disposal. A small steamer, an ineffective floating-battery and an ironclad that had been converted from a blockade-runner are identified as the men-of-war that were entrusted with the defense of Savannah Harbor. It is reported that the ironclad, due to its excessive draught, experienced difficulties in navigating the Savannah River while the obstructions which had been placed in the watercourse are also claimed to have reduced the mobility of the iron-plated ram. Navigating the Savannah River, in anything but the highest of tides, is reported to have been a difficult task for the ironclad to perform. It is claimed that the iron-cased ram, which is reported to have made a number of unsuccessful attempts to attack the men-of-war that were blockading Savannah, was armed with a battery of four guns. A crew of twenty-one officers and twenty-four men are claimed to have served onboard the ironclad, whose guns are reported to have been of a six-inch as well as a seven-inch caliber, when the process of furnishing it had been completed. Tattnall, to paraphrase Davis, was well-known for his combat instincts but had been unwilling to send CSS Atlanta into battle by itself. Lieutenant William Augustine Webb, at a later date, is reported to have received the command of the iron-cased ram. USS Nahant and USS Weehawken, which are identified as ironclads, are claimed to have awaited the approach of CSS Atlanta at Warsaw Sound. It is reported that the iron-cased ram, which is claimed to have run aground on two occasions, found itself in a helpless situation and was compelled to surrender to the Passaic-class monitors. CSS Atlanta, according to Davis, had mounted a brave but hopeless defence.
10) The Spectator. A Weekly Review of Politics, Literature, Theology, and Art. Volume the Forty-Ninth. 1871. by Various Authors.
It is suggested, on page 264 of the forty-ninth volume of The Spectator, that ironclads had become obsolete by the seventh decade of the nineteenth-century while the courage of the crews of iron-plated fighting vessels are reported to have been a deciding factor in the outcome of naval engagements. On the 4th of March, 1871, the newspaper published a review of the opinions that had been expressed in the latest magazines. A review of the article about the ironclads of the British Navy, which was published in the one-hundred and ninth volume of Blackwood's Magazine, is included in the the forty-ninth volume of the newspaper. It is claimed that the article, which is described as the best and most serious paper to be published in the previous month, dispelled the belief that the Royal Navy suffered from a numerical deficiency of ironclads. No mention is given of the name of the author, whose analysis is described as well informed as well as cool and impartial, but the essence of the eighteen-page paper is distilled into series of distinct points. Great Britain, at the beginning of the seventh decade of the nineteenth-century, is reported to have owned more iron-plated fighting vessels than any other nation on earth. Monitors are claimed to have been superior to broadside ironclads while a greater thicknesses of armour, due to the evolution of artillery, is reported to have been necessary to counteract the growing size and penetrating power of projectiles. British ironclads, despite their growing obsolescence, are claimed to have been suitable for protecting the commerce of the nation. It is reported that the ironclads of the Royal Navy, in technical terms, could compete with the iron-plated fighting vessels that belonged to other nations. A quote about the capture of CSS Atlanta, which was extracted from the one-hundred and ninth volume of the magazine, is used to demonstrate the idea that outcome of naval battles depended upon the courage of the mariners that fought them.
Comments
Post a Comment