The Project Gutenberg eBook ofFulton's "Steam Battery": Blockship and CatamaranThis ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Fulton's "Steam Battery": Blockship and CatamaranAuthor: Howard Irving ChapelleRelease date: February 4, 2010 [eBook #31179]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Colin Bell, Louise Pattison, Joseph Cooper andthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team athttp://www.pgdp.net*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FULTON'S "STEAM BATTERY": BLOCKSHIP AND CATAMARAN ***
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Fulton's "Steam Battery": Blockship and CatamaranAuthor: Howard Irving ChapelleRelease date: February 4, 2010 [eBook #31179]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Colin Bell, Louise Pattison, Joseph Cooper andthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team athttp://www.pgdp.net
Title: Fulton's "Steam Battery": Blockship and Catamaran
Author: Howard Irving Chapelle
Author: Howard Irving Chapelle
Release date: February 4, 2010 [eBook #31179]
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Colin Bell, Louise Pattison, Joseph Cooper andthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team athttp://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FULTON'S "STEAM BATTERY": BLOCKSHIP AND CATAMARAN ***
Transcriber’s Notes:This is Paper 39 from the Smithsonian Institution United States National Museum Bulletin 240, comprising Papers 34-44, which will also be available as a complete e-book.The front material, introduction and relevant index entries from the Bulletin are included in each single-paper e-book.Correctionsto typographical errors are underlinedlike this. Mouse over to view the original text.
Transcriber’s Notes:
This is Paper 39 from the Smithsonian Institution United States National Museum Bulletin 240, comprising Papers 34-44, which will also be available as a complete e-book.
The front material, introduction and relevant index entries from the Bulletin are included in each single-paper e-book.
Correctionsto typographical errors are underlinedlike this. Mouse over to view the original text.
Smithsonian Press Logo
SMITHSONIAN PRESS
MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY
ContributionsFrom theMuseumof History andTechnology
Papers 34-44On Science and Technology
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION · WASHINGTON, D.C. 1966
Publications of the United States National Museum
The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series,Proceedings of the United States National MuseumandUnited States National Museum Bulletin.
In these series, the Museum publishes original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of its constituent museums—The Museum of Natural History and the Museum of History and Technology—setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, history, geology, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries, to cultural and scientific organizations, and to specialists and others interested in the different subjects.
TheProceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers from the Museum of Natural History. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume.
In theBulletinseries, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects.Bulletinsare either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum of Natural History have been published in theBulletinseries under the headingContributions from the United States National Herbarium, and since 1959, inBulletinstitled “Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology,” have been gathered shorter papers relating to the collections and research of that Museum.
The present collection of Contributions, Papers 34-44, comprises Bulletin 240. Each of these papers has been previously published in separate form. The year of publication is shown on the last page of each paper.
Frank A. TaylorDirector, United States National Museum
Howard I. Chapelle
SURVIVING DESIGNS FOR FLOATING BATTERIES145
CONTROVERSIAL DESCRIPTIONS147
COPENHAGEN PLANS150
HISTORY OF DOUBLE-HULL CRAFT152
SAIL AND INBOARD PLANS157
RECONSTRUCTING THE PLANS161
APPENDIX167
FOOTNOTES
INDEX
Figure 1.—Scale model of Fulton's Steam Battery in the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo P-63390-F.)Figure 1.—Scale modelof Fulton'sSteam Batteryin the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo P-63390-F.)
Figure 1.—Scale model of Fulton's Steam Battery in the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo P-63390-F.)Figure 1.—Scale modelof Fulton'sSteam Batteryin the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo P-63390-F.)
Howard I. Chapelle
Robert Fulton’s “Steam Battery,” a catamaran-type blockship, was built during the War of 1812. Until recently, not enough material has been available to permit a reasonably accurate reconstruction of what is generally acknowledged to be the first steam man-of-war.With the discovery, in the Danish Royal Archives at Copenhagen, of plans of this vessel, it is now possible to prepare a reconstruction and to build a model.This article summarizes the history of the vessel, describes the plans and the reconstruction, and also evaluates its design with particular attention to the double-hull construction.The Author:Howard I. Chapelle is curator of transportation in the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of History and Technology.
Robert Fulton’s “Steam Battery,” a catamaran-type blockship, was built during the War of 1812. Until recently, not enough material has been available to permit a reasonably accurate reconstruction of what is generally acknowledged to be the first steam man-of-war.
With the discovery, in the Danish Royal Archives at Copenhagen, of plans of this vessel, it is now possible to prepare a reconstruction and to build a model.
This article summarizes the history of the vessel, describes the plans and the reconstruction, and also evaluates its design with particular attention to the double-hull construction.
The Author:Howard I. Chapelle is curator of transportation in the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of History and Technology.
The identity of the first steam man-of-war has been known for many years, and a great deal has been written and published on the history of this American vessel. Until recently, the only available drawing of the ship has been a patent drawing made for Robert Fulton. This does not comply with contemporary descriptions of the steamer and the drawing or plan is out of proportion with the known dimensions. The lack of plans has heretofore made it impossible to illustrate the vessel with any degree of precision, or to build a scale model.
The discovery in 1960 of some of the plans of this historic ship in the Danish Royal Archives at Copenhagen now makes possible a reasonably accurate reconstruction of the vessel and also clarifies some of the incomplete and often confusing descriptions by contemporary writers.
Of the numerous published accounts of the ship that are available, the most complete is David B. Tyler’s “Fulton’s Steam Frigate.”[1]A contemporary description of the vessel by the British Minister to Washington, 1820-23, Stratford Canning, was published by Arthur J. May.[2]InNaval and Mail Steamers of the United States, by Charles B. Stuart,[3]andThe Steam Navy of the United States, by Frank M. Bennett,[4]the history of the ship and some descriptive facts are given. Stuart, in an appendix, gives in full the report of the Supervisory Committee (set up to administer the building contract). Tyler and Stuart, and the Committee Report are the principal sources from which the following summary of the ship’s history is drawn.
Plate No. 1. ‘DEMOLOGOS’ Figure 1st. Transverse section A her Boiler. B the steam Engine. C the water wheel. E E her wooden walls 5 feet thick, diminishing to below the waterline as at F.F draught of water 9 feet D D her gun deck Scale 1/12 inch=1 foot Waterline Scale 1/24 inch=1 foot Figure IId This shews her gun deck, 140 feet long 24 feet wide, mounting 20 guns. A the Water wheel Figure IIId Side View Scale 1/24 inch=1 foot ROBERT FULTON November 1813. S Mc Elroy del. "Stuart's Naval & Mail Steamers U.S." Sarony & Major. Eng. N.Y.Figure 2.—“Demologos,”a wood engravingbased on the sketch which Robert Fulton showed to President Madison in 1813. This wood engraving appears as plate 1 in Charles B. Stuart’sNaval and Mail Steamers of the United States, and illustrates the section on Naval Steamers, from which the account “The Demologos; or, Fulton the First,” is here reproduced (pp. 167-171). Stuart obtained the sketch, assumed to have been made for Fulton’s patent on the design of theSteam Battery, from the files of the U.S. Navy Department.
Figure 2.—“Demologos,”a wood engravingbased on the sketch which Robert Fulton showed to President Madison in 1813. This wood engraving appears as plate 1 in Charles B. Stuart’sNaval and Mail Steamers of the United States, and illustrates the section on Naval Steamers, from which the account “The Demologos; or, Fulton the First,” is here reproduced (pp. 167-171). Stuart obtained the sketch, assumed to have been made for Fulton’s patent on the design of theSteam Battery, from the files of the U.S. Navy Department.
On December 24, 1813, Robert Fulton invited a group of friends—prominent merchants, professional men and naval officers—to his home in New York City and there presented a proposal for a project of great local interest. At that time the War of 1812 was in its second year and the economic effect of the British naval blockade was being felt severely. The blockade cut off seaborne trade and posed a constant threat of attack upon New York and other important ports, particularly Baltimore. To defend the ports, it had been proposed to build mobile floating batteries or heavily built and armed hulks with small sailing rigs, but the high cost of these and their doubtful value in helping to break the blockade, compared to the value and action of a very heavy, large frigate, or a 74-gun ship, caused authorities to hesitate to proceed with the construction of any blockships or floating batteries.
Fulton’s proposal concerned a floating battery propelled by steam power. He believed that steam propulsion not only would give it effective maneuverability with no loss of gunpower, but also would allow a successful attack upon the Royal Navy blockading ships during periods of protracted calm, when sailing men-of-war were nearly helpless. The blockaders then could be attacked and picked off, one by one, by the heavily armed steamboat.
Among those present at the meeting was Major General Henry Dearborn, a leading citizen and soldier who was later to become noted in American political history. The first step taken during this meeting was the founding of the Coast and Harbor Defense Company with Dearborn as president, Fulton as engineer, and Thomas Morris as secretary. Next, a committee was established to raise funds from Federal, State, and New York City governments as well as from individual contributors to build the battery. The members of this committee consisted of General Dearborn, Commodore Stephen Decatur, U.S.N.; General Morgan Lewis; Commodore Jacob Jones; U.S.N.; Noah Brown, shipbuilder; Samuel L. Mitchill; Henry Rutgers; and Thomas Morris.
The committee proved cumbersome and was reduced to General Lewis, Issac Bronson, Henry Rutgers, Nathan Sanford, Thomas Morris, Oliver Wolcott, and John Jacob Astor. Known as the Coast Defense Society and with the name ofPyremongiven the ship in prospectus, they attempted, unsuccessfully, to raise funds privately.
The estimated sums to build a battery 130 feet long, with a 50-foot beam, capable of a speed of 5 mph, and carrying 24 long guns (18-pdr.), was $110,000. Fulton, still the chief engineer, in an effort to interest the Federal Government, built a model of the proposed vessel and submitted it to some prominent naval officers—Commodore Stephen Decatur, Jacob Jones, James Biddle, Samuel Evans, Oliver Perry, Samuel Warrington, and Jacob Lewis. All gave their support to the Society in a written statement and this recommendation proved helpful to the project in Congress and in the Navy Department. In the process of passing a bill which went to the Senate Naval Affairs Committee calling for $250,000 for the construction of the floating battery, the sum was raised to $1,500,000 for the construction of “one or more” floating batteries and passed on March 9, 1814.
To supervise the start of construction, the Coast Defense Society appointed a committee consisting of Dearborn, Wolcott, Morris, Mitchill, and Rutgers, with Fulton as engineer, and a model and drawing of the proposed vessel was submitted to the Patent Office. The Secretary of the Navy, although supporting the project, delayed action until he had weighed the importance of the batteries in relation to other war needs, for at this time the naval shipbuilding program on the Great Lakes was considered of prime importance. He also raised some technical questions concerning the design of the batteries, which Fulton answered with a description of the vessel as 138 feet on deck, 120 feet on the keel, 55 feet beam (each hull to have a 20-foot beam and the “race” between to be 15 feet wide), draft 8 or 9 feet loaded, and the intended speed was to be 4-1/2 to 5 mph. The ship was to carry 24 long guns (32-pdr.), the engine was to be 130 hp, and the total cost, $200,000. In his letters to the Secretary of the Navy, Fulton stated that Adam and Noah Brown would build the hull for $69,800 and that he would buildthe engine, machinery and boilers for $78,000, a total of $147,800. He intended to have the boilers, valves, fastenings, and air pumps of brass or copper, which would raise the machinery costs 59 percent above that of stationary engines and boilers then in use.
On May 23, 1814, the Secretary of the Navy authorized the Coast Defense Society and its committee to act as Navy agents and to enter into the contracts required to build a vessel, and to draw on the Navy storekeepers or Navy Yard commandants for such stores or articles on hand needed for construction. The contracts were prepared and the committee now was officially empowered to act for the Society, with Rutgers, Wolcott, Morris, Dearborn, Mitchill, and Fulton. On June 4, Dearborn asked the Navy Department for $25,000 advance, for work had started. On the 6th, he informed the Secretary that he had been ordered to assume command of the defenses of Boston and that Rutgers had been appointed chairman of the construction committee in his place.
It is apparent that the Navy Department was pressed for funds, due to the very extensive shipbuilding programs on Lakes Erie, Ontario, and Champlain in addition to the seagoing vessels being built in some of the coastal ports. This was certainly one cause for the Secretary of the Navy’s reluctance to carry out the requirements of the bill passed by Congress immediately after its signature and, also, this reluctance caused the supervisory committee much embarrassment in its administration of the contract.
Another factor which caused difficulty in the administration of the contract was the position of Adam and Noah Brown. The brothers were deeply involved in the shipbuilding program on the Lakes, in which they were associated at times with Henry Eckford. The Browns constructed a blockhouse, shops, and quarters at Erie; in addition to Perry’s two brigs and five of his schooners, they also built some of the Lake Ontario vessels and, later, theSaratogaon Lake Champlain. In their New York yard, whose operation continued throughout the war, they built some large letter-of-marques: theGeneral Armstrong,Prince de Neufchatel,Zebra,Paul Jones, and some smaller vessels. They also cut down the 2-decked, merchant shipChinainto a single flush-deck letter-of-marque, renamedYorktown; and they had a contract to build the sloop-of-warPeacock. It is remarkable that the Browns could undertake and complete so much work between 1813 and 1815 and still be able to build the steam battery in a very short time.
With the contracts in order, the Browns began building. The keels of the battery were laid June 20, 1814. It is apparent that the Browns prepared the original hull plans, undoubtedly before the building authority was obtained. The vessel required only about four months to build; she was launched October 29, 1814, at 9 a.m. This was an excellent performance, considering the size of the vessel, the amount of timber required and handled in her massive construction, and the other work being done by the builders. During the ship’s construction, sightseers were a nuisance and finally guards had to be obtained. During the building of the steam battery, work had to be practically stopped on the sloop-of-warPeacockat one period after she had been partially planked.
There were difficulties in obtaining metalwork for the vessel during her construction, due to the blockade and the demand for such material for other shipbuilding at New York. On November 21, 1814, the ship was towed from the Browns’ yard on the East River by Fulton’sCar of NeptuneandFulton, each lashed to the sides of the battery, and taken to Fulton’s works on the North River. There Fulton supervised in person the completion of the vessel and construction of her machinery. Undoubtedly only a little of his time was required in inspection of the Browns’ work on the battery, for the shipbuilders had been closely associated with Fulton throughout the life of the project and were fully capable as ship designers. The work on the machinery was another matter, however, for men capable of working metal were scarce and few workmen could read plans. Fulton had some of the work done outside of his own plant, particularly the brass and copper work (mostly by John Youle’s foundry). As a result, Fulton was required to move from plant to plant, keeping each job under almost constant observation and personally supervising the workmen. The equipment then available for building a large engine was inadequate in many ways. The large steam cylinder presented a problem: it had to be recast several times and some of the other parts gave trouble, either in casting or in machining and fitting.
Figure 3.—Scale model of Steam Battery, showing double hull, in the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo P-63390-D.)Figure 3.—Scale modelofSteam Battery, showing double hull, in the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo P-63390-D.)
Figure 3.—Scale model of Steam Battery, showing double hull, in the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo P-63390-D.)Figure 3.—Scale modelofSteam Battery, showing double hull, in the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo P-63390-D.)
Guns for the battery were another problem. Only 3 long guns (32-pdr.), were available at the Navy Yard. The Secretary of the Navy promised some captured guns then at Philadelphia. Because of the blockade, these had to come overland to New York. The captured guns thus obtained were probably English,part of the cargo of the British shipJohn of Lancastercaptured by the frigatePresidentearly in the war. Apparently 24 guns were obtained this way; only 2 were obtained from the Navy Yard. In July the Supervising Committee carried out some experimental damage studies, in which a 32-pdr. was fired at a target representing a section of the topsides of the battery. Drawings of the result were sent to the Secretary of the Navy.
Further problems arose over the delays of the government in making payments: the banks discounted the Treasury notes, so the Committee members had to advance $5,000 out of their own pockets. There was fear that British agents might damage the vessel, and although the project was undoubtedly known to the British, no evidence of any act of sabotage was ever found. Captain David Porter was assigned to the command of the battery in November, and it was upon his request that the vessel was later rigged with sails.
With theSteam Batteryapproaching completion, the Secretary of the Navy became more enthusiastic and the construction of other batteries of this type was again proposed. Captain Stiles, a Baltimore merchant, offered to build a steam battery, the hull to cost $50,000; the entire cost of the vessel, $150,000, was raised in Baltimore and the frames of a battery erected. Another battery was projected at Philadelphia and the Secretary of the Navy wanted one or more built at Sackett’s Harbor, but naval officers and Fulton objected. A bill put before Congress to authorize another half million to build steam batteries passed the first reading January 9, 1815, went to the House February 22, 1815, but the end of the war prevented any further action on it.
On February 24, 1815, Fulton died. He had been to Trenton, New Jersey, to attend a hearing on the steamboat monopoly and, on the way back, the ferry on North River was caught in the ice. Fulton and his lawyer, Emmet, had to walk over the ice to get ashore. On the way, Emmet fell through and Fulton got wet and chilled while helping him. After two or three days in bed Fulton went to his foundry to inspect the battery’s machinery causing a relapse from which he died. This resulted in some delay in completing the machinery and stopped work on theMute, an 80-foot, manually propelled, torpedo boat that Fulton was having built in the Browns’ yard.
It was decided to suspend work on the Baltimore battery after an expenditure of $61,500, but the New York battery was to be completed to prove the project was practical. The final payment of $50,000 was made four months after it was requested.
Charles Stoudinger, Fulton’s foreman or superintendent, was able to complete and install the ship’s machinery. On June 10, 1815, the vessel was given a short trial run in the harbor with Stoudinger and the Navy inspector, Captain Smith, on board. This trial revealed the need of some mechanical alterations; sails were not used, and it was found she could stem the strong tide and a fresh headwind. The vessel also was visited by the officers of French men-of-war at anchor in the harbor.
On July 4, 1815, she was given another trial. She left Fulton’s works at Corlear’s Hook at 9 a.m., ran out to Sandy Hook Lighthouse, bore west and returned, a total of 53 miles under steam, reaching her slip at 5:20 p.m. She was found to steer “like a pilot boat.” This prolonged trial revealed that the stokehold was not sufficiently ventilated and more deck openings were required. The windsails used in existing hatches were inadequate. The paddle wheel was too low and had to be raised 18 inches, and there were still some desirable modifications to be made in the machinery.
On September 11, 1815, she was again given a trial run. All alterations had been made, including the addition of hatches and raising the paddle wheel, and her battery was on board with all stores, supplies, and equipment. She had 26 long guns (32-pdr.), mounted on pivoted carriages, and now drew 10 feet 4 inches. On this day she left her slip at 8:38 a.m. and went through the Narrows into the Lower Bay, where she maneuvered around the new frigateJavaat anchor there. The battery then was given a thorough trial under steam and sail and, with the ship underway, her guns were fired to see if concussion would damage the machinery. The vessel was found to be a practical one, capable of meeting the government’s requirements in all respects; her speed was 5-1/2 knots. However, the stokehold temperature had reached 116° Fahrenheit! She returned to her slip at 7:00 p.m.
On December 28, 1815, the Committee in a written report to the Secretary of the Navy,[5]gave a description of the vessel and praised her performance. At this time a set of plans was made by “Mr. Morgan,”of whom no other reference has appeared, and sent to the Navy Department. These cannot now be found. The Committee recommended the battery be commissioned and used for training purposes. This suggestion was not followed.
The ship remained in her slip during the winter, and in June 1816 she was turned over to the Navy and delivered to Captain Samuel Evans, commandant of the New York Navy Yard. Captain Joseph Bainbridge was assigned to her command. However, she was not commissioned and soon after her delivery she was housed over and placed “in ordinary,” that is, laid up. The final settlement showed that the Committee, as Navy agents, had paid out $286,162.12 with $872.00 unpaid, as well as a claim for $3,364.00 by Adam and Noah Brown, making a total of $290,398.12.
The following year, on June 18, 1817, she was unroofed and put into service with a small crew. With President James Monroe on board, she left the Navy Yard about noon for a short trip to the Narrows and then to Staten Island and returned in the evening. The next day she was again placed “in ordinary.”
Four years later, in 1821, when her guns and machinery were removed, it was found that she was rapidly becoming rotten. She was then utilized as a receiving ship. At 2:30 p.m. on June 4, 1829, she blew up, killing 24 men and 1 woman, with 19 persons listed as injured. Among those killed was one officer, Lt. S. M. Brackenridge. Two lieutenants and a Sailing Master were hurt, four midshipmen were severely injured, and five persons were listed as missing. The explosion of 2-1/2 barrels of condemned gunpowder was sufficient, due to her rotten condition, to destroy the ship completely. A Court of Inquiry blamed a 60-year-old gunner, who supposedly entered a magazine with a candle to get powder for the evening gun. It was stated to the court that about 300 pounds of powder in casks and in cartridges was on board the ship at the time.[3a]
She was not replaced until the coast-defense steamerFultonwas built in 1837-38, though in 1822 the Navy purchased for $16,000 a “steam galliot” of 100 tons, theSea Gull, to be used as a dispatch boat for the West Indian squadron engaged in suppressing piracy during 1823. In 1825 she was laid up at Philadelphia, and in 1840 she was sold for $4,750.
It is a curious fact that the battery did not receive an official name, as did the sailing blockship on the ways at New Orleans, which at the end of the War of 1812 was officially listed as theTchifonta. Nor was the battery given a number, as were the gunboats. In official correspondence and lists, the steam battery is referred to as the “Fulton Steam Frigate,” or as the “Steam Battery,” but in later years she was referred to as the “Fulton” or “Fulton the First.” Perhaps the explanation is that as she was the only one of her kind she was not numbered, and as she was not considered fit for coastal or extended ocean voyages, she was not given a name.
The designs of American blockships that have survived are those of theTchifonta,[6]145 feet long, 43-foot moulded beam, 8-foot 6-inch depth in hold, and about 152 feet 9 inches on deck. She was to carry a battery of 22 long guns (32-pdr.), on the main deck 12 carronades (42-pdr.), on forecastle and quarter decks. She was to have been rigged to rather lofty and very square topgallant sails, and would have been capable of sailing fairly well, though of rather shoal draft, drawing only about 8 feet 6 inches when ready for service. She was sold on the stocks at the end of the war and her later history is not known.
Another and earlier design for a blockship, or floating battery, was prepared by Christian Bergh for Captain Charles Stewart in 1806. This was a sailing vessel for the defense of the port of New York, planned to mount 40 guns (32-pdr.), on her two lower decks and 14 carronades (42-pdr.), on her spar deck. She was to be 103 feet 6 inches between perpendiculars, a 44-foot moulded beam, 10-foot depth of hold, and drawing about 9 feet when ready for service. She was intended to be ship-rigged, but was never built.[7]A few small sloop-rigged block vessels also were built during Jefferson’s administration. The sloop-of-warSaratoga, built on Lake Champlain by the Browns, in 1813, was practically a blockship. A plan for a proposed “Guard Ship,” or “Floating Battery,” was made by James Marsh at Charleston, South Carolina, in 1814. This was an unrigged battery, 200 feet extreme length, 50-foot moulded beam, 9-foot depth of hold, to mount 32 guns (42-pdr.), on a flush deck, with a covering deck above.[8]
Figure 4.—Design for an unrigged floating battery proposed by James Marsh, Charleston, South Carolina, March 14, 1814.Figure 4.—Design for an unrigged floating batteryproposed by James Marsh, Charleston, South Carolina, March 14, 1814.
Figure 4.—Design for an unrigged floating batteryproposed by James Marsh, Charleston, South Carolina, March 14, 1814.
Through the courtesy of the trustees of the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, England, the Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, Denmark, and the Statens Sjöhistoriska Museum, Stockholm, Sweden, the author has been able to illustrate in this article the designs of some of the early floating batteries.
In the last quarter of the 18th century and later, the Danes had built sail-propelled floating batteries or blockships, which were employed in the defense of Copenhagen. The British built at least one sail-propelled battery, theSpanker, in 1794. This was a scow of very angular form with overhanging gun-deck, bomb-ketch-rigged, and about 120 feet overall 42-foot 4 inches moulded beam and 8-foot depth of hold. She is said to have been a failure due to her unseaworthy proportions and form; the overhanging gun deck and sides were objected to in particular. She is called a “Stationary Battery” in her plans, which are in the Admiralty Collection of Draughts, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.
The contemporary descriptions of the FultonSteam Batterydo not agree. This was in part due to differences between the dimensions given out by Fulton during the negotiations with the Federal Government, and after the ship’s construction was authorized. From the context of various statements concerning the projected vessel, such as that of the naval officers, the changes in the intended dimensions of the ship can be seen. For example, the officers state the model and plan shown them would produce a battery carrying 24 guns (24- and 32-pdrs.), and a letter from Fulton to Jones,[9]shows she was to be 138 feet on deck and 55-foot beam. The final reported dimensions, given by the Supervisory Committee,[10]are 156 feet length, 56 feet beam, and 20 feet depth.
In addition there are a few foreign accounts which give dimensions and descriptions. The most complete was probably that of Jean Baptiste Marestier, a French naval constructor who visited the United States soon after the end of the War of 1812 and published a report on American steamboats in 1824.[11]TheSteam Batteryis barely mentioned though a drawing of one of her boilers is given. Marestier made another report on the American Navy, however. Extensive searches have been made for this in Paris over the last 14 years, but this paper has not been found in any of the French archives. References to the original text indicate that the naval report dealt very extensively with theSteam Battery. Some of his comments on the battery appeared inProcès-verbaux des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences.[12]Marestier considered the powers of the battery to have been overrated due to fanciful accounts of some laymen writers. He was aware of the shortcomings of the double hull in a steam vessel at the then-possible speeds, but he apparently thought two engines, one in each hull and each with its boilers would be better than Fulton’s arrangement of boilers in one hull and engine in the other. He noted that the paddle wheel turned 16-18 rpm and that steam pressure sustained a column of mercury 25 to 35 centimeters. The safety valve was set at 50 centimeters. Fuel consumption was 3-5/8 cords of pine wood per hour.
In view of the access Marestier is known to have had to American naval constructors, shipbuilders, and engineers, it is highly probable that he not only obtained the building plan of the ship but also some of the earlier project plans from the builders and from Fulton’s superintendent, Stoudinger. It is, therefore, a great misfortune that his lengthy report on theBatterycannot be produced.
A French naval officer who investigated the ship, M. Montgéry, also wrote a description, published in “Notice sur la Vie et les Travaux de Robert Fulton.”[13]
Figure 5.—Floating battery Spanker built, in England by William Barnard, at Deptford on the Thames, and launched June 14, 1794. Rigged as a bomb ketch, its length is 111 feet 7 inches in the keel, extreme beam 42 feet 4 inches, depth of hold 8 feet. Upper deck plan also shown.Figure 5Figure 5.—Floating batterySpankerbuilt, in England by William Barnard, at Deptford on the Thames, and launched June 14, 1794. Rigged as a bomb ketch, its length is 111 feet 7 inches in the keel, extreme beam 42 feet 4 inches, depth of hold 8 feet. Upper deck plan also shown.
Figure 5.—Floating batterySpankerbuilt, in England by William Barnard, at Deptford on the Thames, and launched June 14, 1794. Rigged as a bomb ketch, its length is 111 feet 7 inches in the keel, extreme beam 42 feet 4 inches, depth of hold 8 feet. Upper deck plan also shown.
It should be noted in regard to what Montgéry wrote about theBattery, that in 1821 it had been considered desirable to disarm the ship. The engineer in charge, William Purcell, had reported that as there were not proper scuppers, dirt and water had entered the hull and had collected under the engine and boilers, causing damage to the hull, and also that with guns removed, theBatterywould float too high for the paddle wheel to propel the vessel; so it hadbeen decided to remove all machinery as well as the armament.
Figure 5Figure 5.
Montgéry’s description, published in 1822, was taken from his report to the Minister of Marine and Colonies. It noted the battery was made of two hulls separated by a channel, or “race,” 15-1/2 feet wide, running the full length of the vessel. The two hulls were joined by a deck just above the waterline, as well as by an upper deck, and also connected at their keels by means of 12 oak beams each 1 foot square. The vessel was 152 feet long, 57 feet beam, and 20 feet deep. Sides were 4 feet 10 inches thick, and the ends of the hull were rounded and alike. There were two rudders at each end, one on each hull, alongside the race. The eight paddle blades, each 14-1/2 feet by 3 feet, turned in either direction by stopping the engine piston at half-stroke and reversing the flow of steam. Rigged with two lateen sails and two jibs, the ship sailed either end first. The engine of 120 hp was in one hull and two boilers were in the other. Other sources, Marestier, and Colden inProcès-verbaux des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences,[14]gave additional information (some of it incorrect): the engine was inclined, with a 4-foot-diameter cylinder, 5-foot stroke, direct-connected to the paddle wheel, which was turned at 18 rpm. The boilers were 8 × 22 feet with the fireboxes in inside cylinders, each about 5 feet in diameter, and extending about half the length of the boiler from the fire doors. Two fire tubes, each about 3 feet in diameter, returned the gases from the inside end of the fireboxes to the stacks at the firing end. Except at the fire-door end, the firebox was completely surrounded by water. The boiler pressure of about 6 psi was not maintained, varying somewhat with each stroke of the engine.
Water level in the boilers was indicated by try cocks. The safety valve was controlled by a counterbalanced lever. A jet of salt water was injected into the exhaust trunk to form a vacuum by condensation. An air pump transferred condensate and sea water into a tank from which it passed overboard. Only about a tenth of this water was returned to the boilers.
Montgéry stated also that only the lower or gun deck was to be armed. No bulwarks were on the spar deck, only iron stanchions to which were fastened a breastwork of wet cotton bales when theSteam Batterywas in action.
TheBatterywas designed to carry 30 guns (32-pdr.), with 3 guns in each end and 12 on each side, but no guns in the wake of paddle wheel and machinery. Hatches to give air to the stokehold were located amidships. TheBatterywas to have been supplemented at the ends of each hull by a Columbiad “submarine gun” (100-pdr.), Fulton’s invention, but these were not fitted. Provision was to be made in the fireboxes for heating shot, and a force pump with a cylinder 33 inches in diameter was employed to throw a stream of cold water, about 60-80 gallons per minute, for a distance of about two hundred feet. This could be done only when the paddle wheel was not in operation. The paddle wheel was housed, the top fitted with stairs to the spar deck. The gun deck, over the race, was used in part for staterooms, of which the bulkheads were permanent. Hammocks for the complement of 500 men were to be slung on the rest of the gun deck. The ship drew 10 feet 4 inches, with the port sills about 5-1/2 feet above the loadline. Burning wood, the vessel could carry about 4 days’ supply of fuel; burning coal, she carried 12 days’ supply.
Montgéry said that the vessel would be vulnerable to bombshells and hot shot, and that furthermore she could be boarded. The displacement of the ship, at service draft, was 1,450 tons, a figure Montgéryobtained from a copy of the original plan given him by Noah Brown.
Figure 6.—French sketch, in Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, of inboard profile and arrangement of Fulton's Steam Battery, showing details of the Fulton engine, probably taken from one of his preliminary designs.Figure 6.—French sketch, in Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, of inboard profile and arrangement of Fulton’sSteam Battery, showing details of the Fulton engine, probably taken from one of his preliminary designs.
Figure 6.—French sketch, in Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, of inboard profile and arrangement of Fulton’sSteam Battery, showing details of the Fulton engine, probably taken from one of his preliminary designs.
In 1935, Lieutenant Ralph R. Gurley, USN, attempted a reconstruction in sketches of the vessel published in his article “The U.S.S.Fultonthe First” in theU.S. Naval Institute Proceedings.[15]This reconstruction was based on the Patent Office drawing prepared for Fulton, and published by Stuart and Bennett, and the foregoing French sources. The Patent Office drawing showed the engine was an inclined cylinder and Lt. Gurley shows this in his sketch; in his text (p. 323) he says, “The engine was an inclined, single-cylinder affair with a 4-foot base and a 5-foot stroke.” Gurley’s attempt to reconstruct theSteam Batteryis the only one known to the author.
In 1960, Kjeld Rasmussen, naval architect of the Danish Greenland Company, was requested by the author to inspect in the Danish Royal Archives at Copenhagen a folio of American ship plans, the index of which had listed some Civil War river monitors. Mr. Rasmussen found the monitor plans had been withdrawn but discovered that three plans of Fulton’sSteam Batteryexisted, as well as plans of the firstPrinceton, a screw sloop-of-war.
Copies of theSteam Battery’splans were obtained at Copenhagen in September 1960 through the courtesy of the archivist, and were found to consist of the lines, copied in 1817, an inboard profile and arrangement, and a sail and rigging plan. From these the reconstruction for a scale model was drawn and is presented here with reproductions of the original drawings upon which the reconstruction is based.
It is apparent that Montgéry’s description is generally accurate. The vessel is a catamaran, made of two hulls, double-ended and exactly alike. The outboard sides are “moulded,” with round bilges, the inboard sides are straight and flat, as though ahull had been split along the middle line and then planked up flat where split. The hulls are separated by the race, in which the paddle wheel is placed at mid-length. The topsides are made elliptical at the ends, and the midsection shows a marked tumble-home over the thick topside planking but less on the moulded lines.