Posted on 07/15/2006 12:10:36 PM PDT by nuconvert
Scientists: Hunley's hatch was unlocked
Scientists say they may have found an important clue in the mystery of why the Confederate submarine Hunley sank 140 years ago after making history by sinking an enemy warship in battle.
Archaeologists and others working to restore the submarine recovered six years ago from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Sullivans Island have found evidence the forward hatch may have been opened intentionally on the night the sub sank.
The forward hatch was one of two ways crew members got in and out of the sub. It is covered in a thick layer of sand and other ocean debris, but X-rays show the hatch is open about half an inch, according to a news release Friday from the Friends of the Hunley.
Earlier reports said rods that could have been part of the hatch's watertight locking mechanism were found at the feet of the sub's commander, Lt. George Dixon.
That evidence leads those working on the sub to think the hatch may have been opened intentionally.
"The position of the lock could prove to be the most important clue we have uncovered yet and offers important insight into the possibilities surrounding the final moments before the submarine vanished that night," said Hunley Commission chairman state Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston.
If the hatch was intentionally unlocked, there are several possible explanations.
Dixon could have opened it to see if the 40-foot, hand-cranked vessel was damaged when it rammed a spar with a black powder charge into the Union blockade ship Housatonic on Feb. 17, 1864, becoming the first sub in history to sink an enemy warship. Or Dixon could have opened the hatch to refresh the air supply in the eight-man crew compartment or to signal that it had completed its mission.
An emergency also could have led the crew to open the hatch to get out. But because the second escape hatch was found in the locked position, that theory seems less likely.
"If the Hunley crew opened the hatch, it must have been for a critical reason," said archaeologist Michael Scafuri. "Even on a calm day, three-foot swells can occur out of nowhere on the waters off Charleston. Every time the hatch was opened, the crew ran the deadly risk of getting swamped."
The Hunley sank three times, killing a total of 21 crew members.
But the reason it sank on the night of its successful mission remains a mystery.
Although scientists said the new discovery could help determine the cause of the sinking, it also is possible that the lock was damaged after the sub sank and the hatch opened while it sat on the ocean floor.
It sank THREE times?
You can read more about its history here.........
http://www.hunley.org/
Yep. It was known as "the peripatetic coffin."
It really wants to be down there.
They've brought it up, so apparently it will have a chance to sink again.
...even if it has to walk to the water by itself.
And yet there was never a shortage of volunteers to crew the Hunley after each sinking.
If the South was nothing else, they were tenacious.
Must... Not... Make... Screen Door joke...
And if the South had actually had an industrial base comparable to the North, they wouldn't have lost. But then, they wouldn't have gone to war or needed slaves, either.
My guess as to why the Hunley sank has long been CO2 poisoning.
The biggest advantage the South had was that many in the North did not want to fight. The initial Northern army was divided and infested with traitors.
That and the fact that the seceding states just about surrounded the capital. In fact, they would have if the North had not pulled some shenanigans with one of the states.
I have trouble understanding the economics of slavery. It seems that if you want to have a slave worker, you have to not only put down a sizable initial investment, but then you also have to spend enough on that person's food, shelter, and medical care to ensure that they remain healthy. Even if owners weren't required to provide medical care for their slaves, failure to do so would cost them their investment.
By contrast, the only expense involved with taking on an immigrant laborer was putting up a shingle saying "WORKERS WANTED". There were enough immigrants seeking work that no investment was required. If a an employer didn't give a worker enough money for him to stay healthy, the resulting sickness would be no particular loss to the employer--he could simply get rid of the sick worker and hire a replacement.
Why did the South use slaves, then, rather than simply trying to attract immigrant laborers (who would seem, economically, to offer a better deal)?
I agree. Nobody understood the issues involved in providing breathing air underwater back then. The History Channel had a great show on the Brooklyn Bridge a while back, and how many of the workers developed the bends from working in bells at the bottom of the river.
Too late!!!!
The Hunley rest in a 20 foot deep tank of seawater. They keep it at about 60 degrees also....nice and safe.
If you ever get to Charleston, go see the Hunley...the exibit is very moving.
This is why we have rig for dive ping!
Thought you guys might be interested...
The north had no need for the commodity, the buying and selling and propagation of slaves.
Look at some types of commodities currently addressed as a financial activity on the stock market...
The way slaves were marketed yesteryear seemed goofy to the North and to us today...imagine what some in the world think of trading pork bellies on the open market...
Here's my take on the situation.
By the time of the Civil War, the South was an impoverished area with an enormous "installed base" of slaves. They didn't necessarily have the money to pay immigrant workers, the best medicine was crude at best and the slaves built their own shelter out of local materials. Food was procured as part of plantation production. Slaves were thought to be a fungible; when one got sick, it was no matter, they'd breed up more soon enough. (Note that this was the slavemasters' general line of thought in the era, not mine.) The slaves were "free" in the thought of the people of the area and time. Remember, the big plantations didn't have to pay to obtain slaves, since they were already there.
This is because the South, in general, decided to not join the industrial revolution, stayed with agricultural production and got left behind when the economic train left the station. After the war, the South (and the rest of the country) did come around to the way of thinking that you describe. There is the famous plutocrat quote along the lines of "Why should we want slaves? An Irishman is so much cheaper, and you can fire him when he becomes too ill to work." Same thing with the Chinese immigrants.
It made sense to the people in that place at that time; it doesn't make sense to us now, when the average educational level is such that the significant majority of people actually understand the basic economics of labor. Which, by the way, is something that you didn't get in schools that "just taught the three 'R's", which was the basic educational system of the era.
Why do people buy stock or land? Slaves were also an investment. They were a commodity where the demand was high and the supply was kept artifically tight because of bans on imports. On larger plantations the value of the slaves exceeded the value of the land and buildings. Put two slaves together and they could crank out little dividends that might be worth $1000 each or more.
As far as upkeep went, there wasn't much to it. Most food for slaves was grown on the plantation so there wasn't much outlay there. Shelter was rudimentary, clothing was minimal, and health care wasn't much of an outlay either. In return you had labor for life. You didn't have to worry about whether hired labor would be available when you needed it, or whether you would have to outbid someone else for the hired help. Slavery was a pillar of Southern society and not an institution they were about to give up lightly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.