| NEWSLETTER # 23
1) WELCOME TO THE NEW
HUNLEY NEWSLETTER
2) IN
CASE YOU MISSED IT
-
The Uncivilized Engine of War
3) ARTICLE
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FORWARD HATCH
4)
E-MAIL SENT TO PRODUCERS OF SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS
5) RECENT E-MAILS 6)
NEW MAP AND CHART OF THE
CIVIL WAR BATTLE HISTORY AROUND CHARLESTON HARBOR 7)
FROM THE GUEST BOOK 8)
OUR PURPOSE AND GOALS
1)
WELCOME TO THE NEW HUNLEY NEWSLETTER:We
are now publishing our newsletters in HTML. One of the primary highlights
is that we can now inserts images. We hope that you will like the new
newsletter.
***************** SPONSOR **************************** ***********************************************************
This weeks special at
The Hunley store.
The Civil War at Charleston,
The new Hunley pen, and the
Charleston harbor Civil War battle map
by George Penington for only $20.00 plus
S&H.
www.hunleystore.com
***********************************************************************************************************************
2)
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
-
The Uncivilized Engine of War
Scientific American Frontiers
- Mysteries of the Deep Segment 1 The Uncivilized Engine of War - about
The Confederate Submarine H L Hunley. Aired November 26 on PBS, South
Carolina Educational Television Narrated by Alan Alda
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1305/resources/transcript.htm
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1305/video/watchonline.htm
Anybody
that missed this show can go to the above link and watch it online or just
read the transcript. It was promoted as if it would solve the mystery of
the forward hatch, but instead actually brought on more questions than
answers. I think PBS has done an excellent job of making this information
available to the public, but as you will see later in this newsletter
there are serious problems with the facts. I have included links where
the readers can send additional comments or they can be mailed to me and I
will forward them. The pictures are either press photo’s or made
available from the CSS H L Hunley Club.
3)
ARTICLE DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE FORWARD HATCH
The following is an excerpt from the transcript
where Alan Alda is discussing the forward hatch with Paul Mardikian.
PAUL MARDIKIAN This is the cover of the forward hatch here, okay? And this
is the hatch itself. Now, if you measure this. At the front of the conning
tower, there's a gap. If you play on the density, you see it is black. It
means that there's no density. That's rubber. This is a rubber seal that
sealed the submarine closed.
ALAN ALDA Now why is the rubber thicker here than it is over here?

PAUL MARDIKIAN You are going to draw the conclusion yourself.
ALAN ALDA I am guessing there was some kind of a leak here or some kind of
a separation.
PAUL MARDIKIAN Or it's open.
ALAN ALDA It's open? You think it's definitely open?
PAUL MARDIKIAN My theory is that this is unlocked. The closing mechanism
is unlocked.
ALAN ALDA The hinge is over here. So it's compressing this part of the
rubber, but it's not compressing this because it's not tied down.
PAUL MARDIKIAN And the rubber itself has a tendency to pop up
ALAN ALDA ...pushes back if you're not locking it in place.
PAUL MARDIKIAN Exactly. You've got it.
ALAN ALDA (NARRATOR) If the crew really did signal their success on the
surface after the attack - which means they'd survived their own explosion
- then something subsequently made them dive the boat. Maybe in a hurry,
rushing to avoid an approaching ship, they didn't fully lock the hatch, it
sprang open…we'll probably never know. Somehow this "engine of war not
recognized by civilized nations" -- as a Union admiral described it --
went to the bottom.
We know from
information that has been released that the aft hatch is latched closed.

The forward
latch is not engaged and an x-ray shows the hatch is slightly opened a
small amount, less than one degree. The forward hatch was neither latched
nor closed all the way which is vital to reconstruct what happened the
night of February 17, 1864.
We know
from witness accounts that the blue light signal was given.
Did the hatch never get fully closed after giving the lamp signal? Did
this somehow contribute to the sinking or was the Hunley already lethally
damaged. The signal may have been their last act before diving.
Did
something else happen, like the Canandaigua coming along and swamping her?
Dixon was in command from the forward hatch, was he trying to get the
hatch open to escape after the Hunley started sinking
The theory
that the Hunley may have been running submerged or waiting it out on the
floor of the harbor for the Canandaigua and other rescue vessels to leave
the area has been discussed.

The theory that the interior stayed dry by evidence of stalactites has
been discussed. Some have said no that stalagmites or “rustites” were
found on the Titanic as well. If the hatch was open even a little bit did
the interior stay dry as long as the stalagmites would suggest it did or
were there just air pockets that lasted for years?
My opinion
is that the hatch had to have leaked like a sieve. The evidence is strong
that there was no catastrophic breach of the hull until years later. The
analysis of the Hunley interior sediments shows that several hull
penetrations happened latter: Does it seem likely that Dixon would have
intentionally gone for the bottom with the hatch unlocked, no matter how
heavy it was.
Maria Jacobsen has stated that it was not possible for him
to look out the hatch portholes when the latch was engaged. You can’t fit
your head in the conning tower with the latch locked down. Therefore
Dixon left it unlatched for surface operations

A more
quantitative assessment of how much air there was in the sub while it lay
on the bottom has not been made available. Even if there was no hull
breach there is doubt whether they would have been able to surface the
boat after a collision.
The Hunley controlled her depth using a combination of two things: the
ballast tanks and the dive planes. The normal mode of operation was to
trim the tanks to neutral buoyancy and then use the planes to control the
depth.
If the propeller shaft was damaged the dive planes were rendered useless
without forward motion. The command had to be given to close the hatches
and latch them down when suddenly, the boat was pushed underwater causing
water spills out of the ballast tanks into
the crew compartment. The Sub now is suddenly in a dive mode and in order
to surface the command is given to release the ballast. The keel release
mechanism fails.
A more quantitative assessment of how much air there was in the sub while
it lay on the bottom has not been made available. Even if there was no
hull breach there is doubt whether they would have been able to surface
the boat after a collision.

The Hunley controlled her depth using a combination of two things: the
ballast tanks and the dive planes. The normal mode of operation was to
trim the tanks to neutral buoyancy and then use the planes to control the
depth.
If the propeller shaft was damaged the dive planes were rendered useless
without forward motion. The command had to be given to close the hatches
and latch them down when suddenly, the boat was pushed underwater causing
water spills out of the ballast tanks into
the crew compartment. The Sub now is suddenly in a dive mode and in
order to surface the command is given to release the ballast. The keel
release mechanism fails.
THE
AFT TURRET-NOTE Hinge is opposite of forward hatch

Pumping out excess water may have been the only way to survive and return
the ship to the surface. “Blowing the ballast” had to occur in two stages.
First, one had to pump or manually bail the water back into the ballast
tanks. Then once in the tanks a crewman had to pump it out of the boat.
The same pump was used for both purposes with a valve to switch modes.
Eight men in the dark are now faced with ………………………….
4)
E-MAIL
SENT TO PRODUCERS OF SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS
The
following is the E-mail I sent the producers and to Alan Alda about some
of the more serious errors we encountered on the show. I don’t hold Alan
Alda accountable and feel he relied on and trusted in others to supply him
with correct data. Since he is the front man and the one that we see,
hopefully he will make sure that corrections are made. Every fact that I
have stated can be documented and proven. Sources that can cited are:
RAISING THE HUNLEY by Brian Hicks and Schuyler Kropf, The Post and
Courier,
www.hunleyarchives.org/hunley.htm,
and NUMA
To:
The Chedd-Angier Production Company
12/04/02
Scientific American
Frontiers - Mysteries of the Deep Segment 1 The Uncivilized Engine of War
- about The Confederate Submarine H L Hunley. Aired November 26 on PBS,
South Carolina Educational Television Narrated by Alan alda
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1305/video/watchonline.htm
This
past week Hunley discussion groups and internet sites have been thrashing
out the inaccuracies and errors made during the airing of the above show
which was filmed in Charleston, S.C. at the Warren Lasch Laboratory, the
temporary home of the Confederate Submarine H L Hunley. Here is the first
error from the transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1305/resources/transcript.htm
WARREN LASCH This is all the controls for the tank area and
here's the Hunley.
ALAN ALDA God, it's really...
WARREN LASCH Can you see how small it is?
ALAN ALDA It's really small.
WARREN LASCH Isn't that your first reaction? How could
people get inside?
ALAN ALDA It's so tiny. How many people were in there?
WARREN LASCH Nine men.
ALAN ALDA Nine people?
WARREN LASCH Nine men.
We have known for over a
year that there were only eight crewmen on board.
http://www.thehunley.com/Crew/allaccountedfor.htm
The
inaccuracy that causes the most harm and concern involves the following
quote:
“In
1995, after a 14-year search, a team led by author and shipwreck hunter
Clive Cussler found the Hunley, completely covered by silt, close to the
spot where the Housatonic had gone down.”
And
from the transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1305/resources/transcript.htm
ALAN ALDA (NARRATOR) But she didn't come back. She was
lost. Until, that is, a team led by Clive Cussler, the author and
shipwreck hunter, found the sub in 1995, after 14 years of searching.
Cussler used a towed magnetometer to detect the Hunley's hull, which was
completely covered by silt. The sub was further out to sea than where the
Housatonic had sunk -- not where you'd expect her to be if she was already
on the way back.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS is produced by
The Chedd-Angier Production Company
in association with
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine,
and presented on PBS by Connecticut Public Television. Underwriting for
the series is provided by public television viewers and
PBS.
The
producers Chedd-Angier call themselves one of the nation's most
experienced documentary and educational television, video and multimedia
production companies. They state “Our award-winning projects, developed
for adults and children alike, are produced to inform, educate and
entertain.”
Just for the record,
Clive Cussler spent two weeks looking for the Hunley in Charleston in
1980 partying on the beach and running his cabin cruiser aground on the
Charleston Jetties in what he called his “Great Trauma of 80”. The
following summer he spent another two weeks in Charleston on what was
called “the NUMA FOLLIES”. When he left he was quoted as saying “We don’t
know where the Hunley is, but we know where it ain’t”. He was convinced
that the Hunley was not anywhere within 2 miles of the Housatonic. Cussler
did not leave Charleston before claiming as his own shipwreck discoveries
in Charleston Harbor that were previously recorded by Dr. E. Lee Spence
and charted by NOAA. Cussler’s plotted record of the Housatonic was over
700 yards from her actual location. Cussler did not return to Charleston
until 1994 after being contacted by South Carolina Institute of Archeology
and Anthropology and Mark Newell. This third search was a total
boondoggle and failure, where everything had gone wrong. Newell called
Cussler a “glory-hunting millionaire”. In 1995, the NUMA team without
Cussler at hand , but with access to additional information, went back to
a site that had previously been discarded as the Hunley to claim their
discovery.
Is it
possible that the researchers from "Scientific American Frontiers" were
unaware that Dr. E. Lee Spence discovered the Hunley prior to 1995? If
they were not aware of his claim, why weren't they? The quality of their
research should be held to a higher standard than that of others.
When
doing research we often count on others to provide us with vital
information. It may be possible that the full details on the Hunley were
not supplied and vital information was left out about Spence's discovery.
It is also possible that someone intentionally covered up or hid
information from them?
And there
is always a possibility that they were made aware of Spence’s claim but
were told that his claim was not convincing. If "Scientific American
Frontiers" was actually aware of Spence's prior claim, did they interview
him about it? There was no mention of Spence or the Hunley’s history
between 1864 and 1970 on this particular segment.
It
could be as I’ve heard on occasion that a prejudicial authority told a
naive researcher that Spence did not have sufficient documentation to
substantiate his claim.
Is it
possible that someone in the government intentionally falsified the facts
or simply lied by omission of the whole story? A real question would be
“why would they do so?” It would be extremely naďve to believe that
wasn’t possible. As great a job as ninety-nine point nine percent of the
Friends of the Hunley, Inc. and the Hunley Commission are at doing their
jobs there is the odds that information was withheld and that the
researchers were spoon fed data about Cussler’s claim.
There
was an interesting fact brought out in this film. "Cussler's" team found
the Hunley at a location where they had not expected to find it. Alan Alda
stated: "The Sub was further out to sea than where the Housatonic had sunk
-- not where you'd expect her to be if she was already on the way back."
As a researcher myself, I wondered how Cussler's team was led to looking
there?
To follow
a line of investigation the facts are: Spence had already published the
correct location of the Hunley well prior to the Hunley's being dug up in
1995. Even Dr. Mark Newell, the official director of the 1994/95 Hunley
expedition, has repeatedly stated that he used Spence's maps and that he
believes Spence found the Hunley first.
How
could professional researchers smother blatant facts, credit Cussler
alone, and not at least mention Spence's claim?
If
hypothetically Spence didn't find the Hunley first then underwater
archaeologist Mark Newell did.
The
question that needs to be answered is “Why did "Scientific American
Frontiers" credit Cussler?” The facts are that Newell, not Cussler, was
the originator and director of the 1994/95 Hunley Search Project. Newell
was an employee of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology &
Anthropology at the time. Cussler was actually just one of many of the
people involved in supporting Newell's 1994/95 search. The facts without
dispute are that Newell first started searching for the Hunley years
before Cussler got involved. Documentation shows that Spence, first
reported finding the Hunley in 1970, and that no one else claimed to have
found it until 1994/95, when Newell once again searched for the Hunley.
Newell has stated he used maps Spence had sent the State decades earlier.
For further information and documentation visit: www.hunleyarchives.org/hunley.htm
The facts
record that even so, no one dug up the Hunley until after Spence had
published his correct location in a book. When it was finally dug up in
1995, it was officially done as part of the expedition Newell directed.
So why are
so many people, to the point of being ragingly adamant, willing to credit
Cussler? Why not at least credit Newell? One opinion is that it is all
economic. The dollars Cussler donates and the even larger amounts his name
has helped to bring in the form of generous corporate and private
donations has certainly helped many, including the Hunley, but at a very
expensive fee. The price tag and final tally will be lodged somewhere
between the desecration of the simple truth and the destruction of
honesty; the loss of the freedom of information and the absolute
entitlement to know the facts.
A final
truth remains intact: that once Dr. Mark Newell was aware of all of the
facts, he proved himself to be a gentleman by crediting Spence with the
discovery of the Hunley instead of trying to grab the credit for himself.
Cussler and cronies may bask in undeserved glory, but will have to live
with themselves and fear that once history wrenches itself straight the
truth will prevail.
The shame
of it all is that the untruth is so self perpetuating that like a runaway
train it is difficult to stop it, get it back on track and repair the
damage that was done. Fallacious statements told over and over are, in
spite of everything, finally believed by the ones that propagate them.
George W. Penington
www.thehunley.com
5)
RECENT E-MAILS
Sent:
Thursday, November 28, 2002 11:49 AM
To: mistergwp@thehunley.com
Subject:
Re: Hunley newsletter #22
Thanks so much for the
newsletter. Very informative, well documented providing historical
accuracy to what has been mostly theory over the years. Really puts the
humanism back into cold hard historical fact.
One question: Have the remains of the crewmen been ceremoniously
interred? If not, approximately when will this event take place?
B Johnson
Crew Burial will be in 2003
http://www.thehunley.com/Crew/Crew%20Burial%20in%202003.htm
Sent:
Friday, November 22, 2002 5:33 AM
To:
mistergwp@thehunley.com
Subject:
Re: Hunley newsletter #22
This is in response to some of the comments I have seen on the newsletter
from people saying that these men were traitors or that they were enemies
of the United States. If they can not get the history straight they need
to not make any comments at all. All of the men who fought in the Civil
War fought for what they believed. In fact if you really look close you
will find that the War was fought not over slavery but the rights of
states to choose for themselves. Granted the Slave issue was not helping
matters any but the southern men who fought are just as patriotic as any
American they stood up for what they believe. Also as a good point to this
the US Military gives campaign credit to Southern Regiments. Units that
were organized as a Union unit is given a campaign streamer for the Civil
War with blue on top of grey, units that were given campaign credit as a
Confederate force are given a streamer that is grey on top of blue. We
should remember the sacrifices that the soldiers and sailors made on both
sides they both contributed to the growth and the greatness of our
country. These men were NOT traitors they embellish the traits of all good
men that are not afraid to stand for what they believe, they deserve the
recognition and a hero’s burial no matter how you look at it.
6)
NEW MAP AND
CHART OF THE CIVIL WAR BATTLE HISTORY AROUND CHARLESTON HARBOR.

(Section
showing Crews temporary quarters in Mt. Pleasant and the Hunley Submarine
Dock at Breach Inlet)
The map based around the Civil War
in Charleston Harbor has expanded to include the Stono River area. I have
taken the NOAA Chart 11521 and reduced it to a manageable size of 11 x 17.
The Latitudes and Longitudes are scaled so that tracking can be accurately
done. Each map graphically shows the ships around the harbor and their
appropriate location on specified dates. I have plotted the locations of
wrecks such as the Blockade runner "Ruby" off Folly Beach. The Housatonic
and the Hunley are accurately charted according to records and research
that are publicly available.
Using available Naval Records and
History, reports, and documents I have been able to discern the locations
of such ships as the Canandaigua, the probable course of The Hunley, and
the location of various other blockading ships in relation to Hunley the
night of February 17, 1864. I have kept the depth gages of the waters
around Charleston and have included the locations of the first and second
sinking of the Hunley. All the time and research in making this map has
been extremely interesting and gives a great perspective of the battles in
and around Charleston Harbor from 1861-1865. The Charleston Harbor Map is
available threw www.hunleystore.com
7)
FROM THE GUEST
BOOK
Date:
17 Nov 2002
Comments:
Very good site I am a member of Friends of the Hunley. Is
there anyway to purchase gifts off of your website? When I was there in
Nov. I saw some articles that I would like to purchase as Christmas gifts.
wrhunt@whro.net
Date:
18 Nov 2002
Comments:
As I viewed your photographs and read your articles, I was
overcome with how much these men gave in service to the Confederacy. What
magnificent pioneers they were and their bravery beyond comprehension. I
eagerly look forward to your updates. BeverMort@aol.com
Date:
19 Nov 2002
Comments:
great site
Date:
23 Nov 2002
Comments:
Being a Submariner myself, I can appreciate the sacrifice
and pioneering feats the crews of the CSS Hunley made. I will make it a
point to visit the museum when it opens. Bryan Richardson Goose Creek,SC
Date:
23 Nov 2002
Comments:
Great website! Thanks for all your hard work in bringing
the news of the hunley home to us. The yamndankee ship our Hunley
submarine sunk was in fact an ENEMY ship. They were enemy's to our
heritage and way of life. They tried to kill us all and didn't succeed and
it shows in the building of the Hunley that we weren't ignorant and we
sure weren't going to stand by and do nothing. HOOORRAAAAYYY! to the
hero's of the Hunley and may God raise up more lovers of freedom and
DIXIE. DEO VINDICE
Date:
25 Nov 2002
Comments
Great website, super newsletter.
I read Melissa N's thoughtful comments with interest, and appreciated
you-alls reply. I was struck by these thoughts: the items in Lt Dixon's
pockets were the things that he wanted to have with him if he died, which
he must have known was a possibility given Hunley's history, and his
personal experience with the elephant at Shiloh and elsewhere. I thought
about my personal experiences and observations when faced with similar
circumstances as a US Marine, and it occurred to me that perhaps the most
fitting fate for the pinky ring, gold coin and brooch might be with the
remains of Lt Dixon’ when ultimately re-interred. Perhaps an extensive
laser or other mapping could allow reproduction to pains-taking accuracy,
but shouldn't those things with which Lt Dixon chose to have at his final
moment stay with him? I offer this only for discussion, and would like to
hear other thoughts. I believe the work being done on Hunley to be
historic in itself, and exceptionally valuable to this and future
generations. I am a former Charlestonian, College of Charleston graduate,
and history buff, too! R/tgr
Date:
25 Nov 2002
Comments:
Is the Hunley on public display as
yet? If so, where may it be seen? I am doing sketches for my Civil War
2003 Art Calendar, and would like to find good accurate photos of the TOP
SIDE, above the water-line, part of the Hunley. Thanks, Willie Smith
Date:
01 Dec 2002
Comments
I always read the "Hunley "
newsletters with great interest , however it amazes me to see how the
discovery of a military artifact 100 + years later can lift the lid on so
many OLD wounds . In the Fall of 99 I visited the Confederate Museum -
Richmond Va . And while there noticed several folks in tears while viewing
the exhibits. I asked one woman - why the tears ? She replied ,that her
Great Grand Daddy had been killed during the Civil War .Her Great Grand Ma
mourned his death till her own passing . The story of this man had been
passed down through the generations and she felt that out of respect for
her long passed relative she should visit the Museum . She said , to me
with gallons of flowing tears she did not EVER expect to ," go to pieces "
! . She found the reality of seeing the exhibits 1st hand brought all of
her families PAIN right up to the surface .Even after 100 + years. My view
is the Hunley and its crew was lost in one of modern histories most bloody
battle, a long, hard, bloody war killing more men then all the wars of the
20th century combined. Having met WW2 veterans on both sides, folks should
to drop the politically correct view of the Civil War. And simply focus on
the fact - right or wrong, the Hunley crew members were doing there job,
fighting a war under orders and nothing more. The victims of war are
indeed the dead; however the death of a soldier for any cause has a long
lasting legacy. Lest we forget!!! . So when the time is right, let us bury
our dead with the honor and respect they deserve as military men - simply
following orders!!! Let’s not kill them all over again. And let us all
pray that we get through this current world crisis in one piece. A-men!!
Date:
01 Dec 2002
Comments:
wonderful
Date:
03 Dec 2002
Comments
You have a super site and very
informative. I am married to a girl from the 'holy city' and two of our
children went to school there and now call Charleston home. We like to
keep up with the events that make that area of S.C. such an interesting
area to visit, plus all of the great historical information you are adding
concerning the tragic events that resulted in the lost of lives on both
sides during the War between the states. Congratulations on the work you
have done to save this noble vessel and good luck for the preservation
that lays ahead....E.M.
Date:
04 Dec 2002
Comments
Love the site! so smart and well
thought out! keep it coming!
8)
OUR
PURPOSE AND GOALS Is to provide specialized information to those
who are interested in the recovery efforts and history of the Confederate
Submarine H L Hunley. It is available free to anyone who might benefit
from the information it contains, for example, students and history buffs.
Our mailing list will always be kept private and will never be sold.
Feel free to forward this
newsletter to any friends or associates
<<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>>
<<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>>
George W. Penington
|