The Impact Of Mine Warfare Upon US Naval Operations During The Civil War

LCDR Edwin D. Lindgren USN

• Publisher: Golden Springs Publishing
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781782899426
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: American Civil War History
• Index: History

This study investigates the impact of Confederate naval mine warfare against the operations of the U.S. Navy during the Civil War. Mine warfare was a cost effective method for the Confederacy to defend its long coastline and inland waterways. A wide variety of fixed, moored, and drifting mines were deployed and used with effect at locations along the Atlantic coast, the Gulf coast, and along rivers, including those in the Mississippi basin.Despite loss and damage to thirty five Union naval vessels, mine use had virtually no strategic impact upon the course of the war. At the operational level, effects were apparent. Federal naval operations at Charleston and on the Roanoke River were frustrated, in large part because of the mine threat. The impact of mines was great at the tactical level. These cost effective weapons caused delays in Union operations, resulted in involved countermine operations, and caused fear and apprehension in crews.The lessons from the mine warfare experience of the Civil War are still applicable in today's warfare environment. Naval mines are a preferred weapon of minor naval powers and the U.S. Navy will be required to deal with this threat when operating along the World's coastal regions.

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION

Damn the torpedoes! Four bells,

Captain Drayton, go ahead!

Admiral Farragut, Mobile Bay, August A, 1864

The American Civil War was the first conflict in history in which mine warfare played a significant role both at sea and in the riverine operating environment. Much technical work on naval mine warfare was accomplished during the century prior to the Civil War, and naval mines saw limited employment during the Schleswig-Holstein War and Crimean War.{1} However, it was during the Civil War that the mine as a naval weapon entered its period of modern development and tactical deployment. The Union Navy’s encounter with “torpedoes” at Mobile Bay in August 1864 is probably the best known encounter with naval mines in the popular literature of the Civil War. However, the Confederate States of America (CSA) used defensive mining extensively, in both marine and riverine environments along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, and up into the Mississippi River basin. By the end of the war, naval mines of all types had sunk or damaged a total of thirty five Union ships, gunboats, and small vessels.{2} This was more damage than inflicted on Union maritime forces by all other types of weapons combined. Dealing with this threat was a significant challenge for the U.S. Navy (USN) during the war.

The scientific and technological developments that led to the deployment of naval mines had their beginnings with the invention of gunpowder during the thirteenth century. Additional advancements in firearms technology and research in electricity led to the invention of three basic types of naval mines by the mid-nineteenth century. These three, the electrically-detonated mine, and the chemical and percussion contact mines, would be the principal types used by the CSA during the Civil War. The hundred year period prior to the Civil War was one of rapid development of the concept of the mine as a naval weapon. These developments took place initially in America and then the focus of activity shifted to Europe.

The first known use of mines in naval warfare was during the American Revolutionary War. David Bushnell developed a floating keg mine that was activated by a flintlock trigger. In December 1777 or January 1778 he released a number of these drifting devices in an unsuccessful attempt to sink British vessels anchored on the lower Delaware River.{3} There are no other known attempts of the use of mines during the Revolutionary War. Robert Fulton conducted work on mines during the late 1700s and early 1800s. He received funding from the U.S. Government for research and tests, and demonstrated that an underwater explosion could sink a moored vessel. Fulton proposed using mines as a defensive measure during the War of 1812, but there is no evidence any action was taken on his suggestion.{4}

Early work was also progressing on developments which would lead to electrically-detonated mines. In 1751, Benjamin Franklin invented a method for igniting gunpowder using an electrical discharge between two metal points imbedded in powder. Additional research led to the use of a fine wire, such as platinum, heated with lower voltages to ignite gunpowder.{5} In 1839, British Colonel Charles Pasley removed a wreck lying off Portsmouth Harbor using an electrically-detonated underwater demolition. This effort brought together all the critical elements required for the success of the electrical mine, including “insulated electric cables, batteries, hot wire initiators, and gun powder in watertight containers.”{6} Back in the United States, Samuel Colt was conducting experiments with electrically detonated underwater explosions. He used a galvanic battery to heat a fine wire embedded in gunpowder. Colt was prolific in this work, developing concepts for managing the fire-control of an electrically detonated mine field and suggesting that these devices could be used to augment coastal defenses. However, Colt was very secretive about his work and the U.S. Government eventually lost interest.{7}

Colt’s was the last major research conducted in the United States prior to the Civil War. However, significant developments were continuing in Europe. In 1839, a Committee on Underwater Experiments was established in Imperial Russia. This was the world’s first military organization with official status on underwater warfare.{8} A German physicist, Moritz von Jacobi, who was appointed to the committee by Czar Nicholas I, did work on electrically-fired mines for Russian use. The Nobel family, who were emigres from Sweden, also developed mines and a chemical method for igniting gunpowder for Russia. This consisted of placing sulfuric acid, potassium chlorate, and sugar in a glass tube which, when crushed, mixed the substances, producing sufficient heat to ignite gunpowder.{9} In 1848, Werner von Siemens laid a field of galvanically (electrically) controlled mines at Kiel during the Schleswig-Holstein War. This frustrated Danish attempts to bombard the city and was the first controlled moored minefield in history.{10}

It was during the Crimean War that the Russians put the naval mine to use in the defense of St. Petersburg and Kronstadt. Kronstadt, located at the head of the Gulf of Finland, guarded the approaches to the Russian capital at St. Petersburg. Although most of the fighting during the Crimean War was on the peninsula of the same name in the Black Sea, there was a significant British naval effort in the Baltic Sea. The Russians placed planned mine fields in defense of harbor works and fortifications, making use of both contact and electrically controlled mines. Electrical mines were laid in the sea approaches to Kronstadt, with 165 placed in 1854 and 300 in 1855. Almost 1000 mines were laid in approaches to the fortress at Sveaborg.{11} The mines performed poorly overall, with the contact mines having explosive charges too small to inflict significant damage to a vessel.{12} However, it is noteworthy that the British did conduct minesweeping during their operations in the Gulf of Finland and HMS Merlin sustained damage from a mine explosion at Kronstadt. This was probably the first warship in history damaged by a naval mine.{13} Despite the large number of mines deployed by the Russians, the effort during the Crimean War was outside the main theater of operations and did not cause significant problems for the British fleet.

The dissolution of the Union and the commencement of hostilities between the Northern and Confederate States brought together two very different navies with radically different missions and methods. There were significant differences in fleet size and composition, naval support facilities, personnel availability and training, and industrial support infrastructure between the North and South. A brief review of these factors will lead to the role the naval mine played in the South’s naval strategy.

President Lincoln initially hoped to stem the tide of succession and coax rebellious states back into the Union with a minimum of bloodshed. However, following the events of April 1861 at Charleston and additional bellicose actions by the newborn Confederacy, it became obvious that concerted military action would be required to crush the rebellion. There was much confusion within the government as to the best strategy to follow; however, General of the Army Winfield Scott proposed the nucleus of a strategy that would ultimately be the cornerstone of the military effort to bring the Confederate states back into the Union. Weigley states that Scott:

“proposed to subject the Southern Confederacy to a gigantic siege, employing Union naval power to blockade the Southern ports and gradually to strangle the confederate economy by preventing the export of cotton and the import of industrial products and war material. On land, he proposed to delay major actions until superior armies could be equipped and trained, whereupon he would have conducted a war of regular, deliberate approaches, using the rivers which penetrated the Confederacy, and again Union naval power, gradually to dismember the Confederacy as a besieging army might gradually chop away the bastions of a fortress.”{14}

Scott expected a long war, possibly lasting up to three years. His strategic approach met with much critical comment, especially from those expecting a short, decisive war.

President Lincoln began to implement the naval portion of Scott’s proposed strategy on April 19, 1861, when he authorized the naval blockade of Southern ports. Although short of vessels to enforce the blockade, ships began to operate off Atlantic coast ports and along the Potomac River. The Union had to establish the blockade piecemeal, as the Navy acquired additional vessels for blockade duty. The blockade was extended to the Gulf of Mexico in May 1861. That same month Commander John Rodgers was ordered into the Mississippi River valley to begin the task of forming a naval force to operate on the Mississippi and its tributaries. He established a base at Cairo, Illinois and functioned under the command of Army General McClellan.{15} Naval operations on the Mississippi, performed jointly with the Army, had three major purposes. Those were to split the Confederacy in two, isolating the western states; close the river to Confederate trade, effectively extending the blockade into the Mississippi basin; and reopen the river as an outlet for Union commerce from the upper Midwest.{16} In addition, control of the river would give the Union great flexibility to move troops and material in the Western theater of operations.

At the start of the Civil War, the United States Navy was a capable organization with global, deep water operating experience. The USN had been actively involved in combat operations during the Mexican American War, and had conducted exploration expeditions to places as varied as Antarctica and the Dead Sea.{17} It was a small Navy, but active, progressive and forward thinking in most respects. At the start of the war only a handful of ships were at the home squadron, with the remainder on overseas stations. In 1861 the Navy had a total of ninety vessels; forty two were in commission, with the rest unserviceable or otherwise laid up.{18} It was a fleet making the transition from sail to steam; the most modern vessels were steam frigates with screw propulsion. These vessels had fairly deep drafts, being designed for open ocean operations, and were not suited for operations in the shallow waters and bays of Southern coastal inshore waters. The USN had not yet begun the transition to ironclad vessels, as was being done by major European navies.

Strides had been made in naval ordnance and gunnery. The significant work of Commander John Dahlgren had led to the development and deployment of a family of large caliber, rifled naval guns which fired exploding shot. These weapons could be brought to bear with devastating effect against other vessels and masonry forts.{19} The USN was also blessed with a talented pool of officers. The Navy did have problems holding promising young officers due to a moribund system which allowed senior officers to remain on active duty until death. This restricted promotion opportunity, but was quickly reformed after the outbreak of the war. However, the North’s major advantage in the naval war was its industrial capacity and the nation’s massive maritime industry located in the Northeast. This large commercial fleet allowed for the purchase of suitable vessels to augment the Navy until . specialized ships could be built. The Navy was also able to rapidly expand it...

Table of contents

• Title page
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• ABSTRACT
• CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER 2 - ATLANTIC COAST OPERATIONS
• CHAPTER 3 - GULF COAST OPERATIONS
• CHAPTER 4 - THE WESTERN RIVERS
• CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATION TO CONTEMPORARY NAVAL OPERATIONS
• BIBLIOGRAPHY