Scientists: Hunley's hatch was unlocked

yahoo news/AP ^ | Jul 14, 2006

[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.

[Non-Sequitur]

Slavery was a serious economic drain on the south because, in addition to the cost of slavery, the south had a very small middle class since slaves had no buying power and there was no way establish an entrepreneurial class or any industrial base.

Slavery was hardly an economic drain, rather it was what made rich Southern planters rich southern planters. The 4 million or so slaves in the U.S. in 1861 had a total value of upwards of $4 billion.

The South had as much of what we would call a middle class as the North did. And most slave owners where probably part of it. Most slave owners were small time, owning 5 or fewer. And many, perhaps most slaves never saw the inside of a cotton field, either. They were cooks, butlers, maids, grooms, gardeners, what have you. Thomas Jackson, a university professor and as solidly middle-class as they come, owned as many as 10 slaves at one time, buying them and selling them as the need arose.

[BenLurkin]

That is a very cool link.

"Facial reconstruction" - wow!

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

In some states of the South, the slave population was almost as much as the White population. There was a true concern that if freed, there would be violent payback. Also, most of the North were slave states at one time, and abolished slavery gradually by passing laws (NY effective 1800) that any slave born after a certain date was free. That led to NY slaves being sold to owners in slave states. Virginia's legislature almost voted to abolish slavery a few years before the civil war. Slavery's end was inevitable, but it may have taken until 1890 or 1900 for slavery to end in the South (without the war).

[muir_redwoods]

So where were their entrepreneurs? Where was their industrial base? Where were the businesses that the North had? Other than farming and agricultural related businesses where would a non-farmer work? Why did the South have to export their cotton instead of establishing vertically integrated businesses that would have spun the cotton and weaved the cotton into fabrics?

Sure a few planters got rich but the army the south fielded were often unshod and ill-equipped. Slavery cost the south its economic potential and retarded the economic growth of the region for more than a century after the war.

[Non-Sequitur]

Virginia's legislature almost voted to abolish slavery a few years before the civil war.

Virginia's constitution did not allow the legislature to pass any acts of manumission. It also provided that any slave freed had 12 months in which to leave the state or be sold back into slavery.

[Non-Sequitur]

So where were their entrepreneurs? Where was their industrial base? Where were the businesses that the North had? Other than farming and agricultural related businesses where would a non-farmer work? Why did the South have to export their cotton instead of establishing vertically integrated businesses that would have spun the cotton and weaved the cotton into fabrics?

The Southern mindset of the time was perhaps best expressed by Louis Wigfall, a Texas senator, in a conversation with William Russell, a correspondent of The Times of London shortly after the rebellion began: "We are an agrarian people; we are a primitive people. We have no cities - we don't want them. We have no literature - we don't need any yet. We have no press - we are glad of it…We have no commercial marine - no navy - we don't want them. We are better without them. Your ships carry our produce and you can protect your own vessels. As long as we have our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, and our cotton, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from those nations with which we are in amity, and to lay up money besides."

So why weren't there entrepreneurs or industry or manufacturing? Because the southern aristocracy was making more than enough money doing what they knew, investing that money in more slaves and more land to produce more agricultural produce for export.

Sure a few planters got rich but the army the south fielded were often unshod and ill-equipped. Slavery cost the south its economic potential and retarded the economic growth of the region for more than a century after the war.

The South built it's economy on slave labor. When that labor was gone then there was no substitute, so they did suffer as a result of losing their rebellion. But prior to the war the South was one of the richest areas of the nation, with a per-capita income far in excess than that of the North.

[muir_redwoods]

"The South built it's economy on slave labor. When that labor was gone then there was no substitute, so they did suffer as a result of losing their rebellion. But prior to the war the South was one of the richest areas of the nation, with a per-capita income far in excess than that of the North".

Due to the small population, the wealth of the few obscenely rich planters may have resulted in a higher per capita income average but the wealth of the south was insignificant compared to the north. As you said, without the slaves the south had no middle class to replace these lost workers. An asset that evanescent is not an asset it's a drain.

With slaves they could never establish the capitalist elements of true wealth, capital, factories, banks and other businesses. Farmland you can't work because of a lack of labor is not an asset, it's a fallow field.

[supercat]

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.

If slaves were thought of as being so cheap, why did they command such high prices on the market? The cost of a slave in the South was equivement to many years' pay for a factory worker in the North.

My intuition would be that slavery was supported as much by inertia as by anything else. Among other things, there was a very real problem of what to do with all these people who had been deliberately kept ignorant and uneducated. That is, in a sense, a problem that still exists today because liberals still try to keep blacks ignorant and uneducated.

[Non-Sequitur]

As you said, without the slaves the south had no middle class to replace these lost workers. An asset that evanescent is not an asset it's a drain.

No, what I said was that the South had an active middle class who embraced slavery as enthusiastically as the upper class did.

With slaves they could never establish the capitalist elements of true wealth, capital, factories, banks and other businesses.

All probably true, but it is due more to a lack of interest in investing in those areas than a lack of capitol. James D. B. DeBow was an early and fervent advocate of Southen economic expansion and diversification, giving facts and figures as to why it was in the South's best interest. He was widely ignored.

[dakine]

"the forward hatch may have been opened intentionally"...

Well, the fridge WAS on the porch...

[Thumper1960]

"the forward hatch may have been opened intentionally"...

A diet of greens 'n beans'll make opening the hatch a necessity.

[muir_redwoods]

"James D. B. DeBow was an early and fervent advocate of Southen economic expansion and diversification, giving facts and figures as to why it was in the South's best interest. He was widely ignored."

He and I agree and are right. Those who disagree were and are wrong.

BTW A block of subsistance farmers, slave owning or not, is not a middle class. The bulk of humans in history were subsistance farmers and they were never a middle class. Capitalism invented the middle class.

[stand watie]

YEP. our ancestors WERE.

the war for dixie FREEDOM wouldn't have lasted 6 months, if the "lads in tattered gray rags" hadn't had a SURPLUS of guts & tenacity. they never had enough of anything else.

in the end, the "good 'ole rebs" were overcome by TOO many men fed into the "meat-grinder" & industrial superiority.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

nope. absent the war, slavery wouldn't have lasted, anywhere in the country,for another decade, as the Industrial Revolution had come to agriculture.

but then only NITWITS believe the war was about slavery. it was about FREEDOM for dixie. (or "preserving the union", if you're a bluecoat apologist)

free dixie,sw

[TXnMA]

By my understanding, though, CO2 concentrations in an enclosed space would reach toxic levels long before there was insufficient oxygen to support a candle flame.

Dead wrong. During a test of how long the Hunley could stay down with the crew breathing only the enclosed oxygen, the candle went out long before the crew gave up and surfaced. They stayed down two hours (on the bottom, at rest, of course) and the sentry who was waiting for them on shore, gave up and left, thinking that they had perished in the attempt.

FWIW, the Hunley had a rudimentary snorkel system, and one of the crew was assigned to work the bellows, rather than to crank the propeller.

I'm surprised that there is any claim to mystery about the opened hatch. The snorkel worked only on the surface, and was one way only. In order to get effective air exchange, a hatch had to be opened. Besides, sentries on Sullivan's Island reported that Dixon signaled to shore with his blue-lensed carbide lantern. That act would have entailed opening his hatch, as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI, I conducted preliminary studies on the Hunley in prep for its raising. It was my company's on-line forum of engineers and historians who (accurately) predicted that the torpedo boom or "spar" was a metal pipe, 18-20 feet long, and was deployed from the bottom of the bow at a downward angle of 30 degrees, This was based on the fact that the Hunley (following Gen. Beauregard's orders) attacked on the surface -- yet the explosion severed the Housatonic's propeller shaft.

It was shortly following our 30-degree downward angle prediction, that Hunley historian, Mark Ragan, posted the following sketch to our forum:

(Note the 30-degree angle of the spar socket...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not surprised the hatch was opened -- but I still can't help but wonder if the missing forward "deadlight" in the front hatch tower also could have played a role in the combat loss of the world's first successful attack submarine...

[TXnMA]

SW, meant to copy you on #35...

[75thOVI]

I wrote that suggestion up as a monograph and submitted it to the Hunley museum. I suggested that the small medicine bottle found in the sub was to help mitigate the effects of CO2 poisoning. (Cracking headache.) A couple of years a go I was able to visit the Hunley, and asked what they thought about the theory. The docent I talked to said it was "just about on a par with Kidnapped By Aliens." Oh well, I'll stick with the CO2 theory anyway.

[Professional Engineer]

ping

[stand watie]

THANKS!

interesting!

free dixie,sw

[Zeroisanumber]

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.

It was even worse than that, because slavemasters needed to spend money on tools that sharecroppers would have paid for themselves, overseers to ensure that work was being done, and the price of caring for slaves who were too old or injured to work.