* In his haste to move upon the blockading vessels of the Union Navy, William A. Webb, commander of the CSS Atlanta obviously misjudged the efficiency of his vessel, placing great faith in her sole ability to destroy "the whole abolition fleet," as he so succinctly put it, when he indicated that they held no terror for him. Webb had been advised to delay his movements against the Union fleet until the completion of construction of the ironclad ram, CSS Savannah, which, as it turned out, was less than two weeks after the battle. [1] The CSS Savannah was later described as being "the most efficient vessel of the squadron," [2] and with her assistance during the battle, the outcome may have been totally different. There had been some indications during trial runs of the CSS Atlanta that problems could occur, but Webb failed to take heed of these warnings. [3] His rather ambitious plans were to "break up and raise the blockade between here [Savannah] and Charleston, and on returning to look into Hilton Head, damaging the enemy there as much as possible, and then to enter the Savannah River, where I can remain to cut off supplies for Fort Pulaski. After returning from this cruise, I may proceed to the southward as far as Fernandina [Florida]." [1]

* Conditions aboard the vessel, as well as the number of crew who were inexperienced may have contributed to the disaster. At least two accounts mention the state of the vessel, including poor ventilation and sanitary conditions. A report to Admiral Du Pont, commanding the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, by several officers of the Union Navy, authorised to survey the captured vessel, notes the "roughness of all the work about her. No expense has been incurred for finish and ornament. The comfort of the crew and its sanitary condition appear to have been totally disregarded. Efficiency in battle seems to have been the sole point aimed at." [4] In a report to Secretary Mallory by Commander William A. Webb, shortly after his release from captivity in October, 1864, he mentions that the majority of the crew, a number of whom had also served in the Confederate Army, were from the mountains of Georgia and were inexperienced in the regimentation of a war vessel. [5] Another source indicates that out of a crew of 140 (not including the officers), about a hundred were previously soldiers from Georgia regiments, who had very little knowledge of naval gunnery. [6]

* Shortly after her capture, at least two senior personnel of the Confederate Army and Navy tended to believe that the only reason for her loss was probably because the crew had mutinied and overpowered the officers. This total lack of faith and trust in the enlisted personnel of the Confederate Navy was mentioned in dispatches sent by Brigadier General H.W. Mercer, commanding the Military District of Georgia, as well as Lieutenant J.S. Kennard, commanding the Naval Squadron at Savannah. [7] Later accounts by participants in the battle disproved these assumptions.

* One of the Confederate eye witnesses of the battle, the commander's secretary, C. Lucian Jones, who was aboard the steamer Resolute, may have been suffering from myopia. He mentions, in his report of the battle, that the USS Weehawken, on being attacked by the CSS Atlanta, retreated for half a mile towards the USS Nahant. However, Commander Webb's October, 1864 report to Secretary Mallory, mentioned previously, indicates clearly that the USS Weehawken kept on approaching the CSS Atlanta, in spite of several shots fired at her. [8]

* The number of personnel captured aboard the CSS Atlanta varies, between accounts, from 136 up to 165. Even within a few pages of volume 14 of the Naval Official Records that cover the accounts of the battle, there is some confusion as to the exact number of personnel who were captured. A count of the number of personnel of the CSS Atlanta, listed on pages 267 and 268 of this volume, who were received on board the USS Vermont, at Port Royal Harbor, South Carolina, two days after the battle, shows 22 officers and 114 enlisted men, for a total of 136. However, the report of Captain John Rodgers, commanding the USS Weehawken, mentions that there were 21 officers and 124 enlisted men. He mentions that his count was made from the muster roll of the vessel, and obviously not a head count. A third report, some pages later, gives the total number as 165, which is the figure also accepted by Scharf in his "History of the Confederate States Navy." [9] The list of names of the officers who were captured, as noted in the Naval Official Records does not include Frank Boville (surname also shown as Beville) and pilot John Makin, both of whom are listed as also being captured on the CSS Atlanta, in a separate source. [10] Perhaps the fact that the prisoners were separated on capture - some being sent to hospital, while others were sent North in different vessels, may have caused the discrepancy in numbers.

* While the majority of the officers remained in captivity for more than a year, the enlisted sailors were all paroled and returned South within a few weeks. The surgeon and his assistant remained with the wounded and accompanied them North, and were released in early December, 1863, in accordance with the rules governing Medical personnel.

* The pilots named in the Naval Official Records as being aboard the vessel at the time of her capture were James M. Fleetwood, William W. Austin and Thomas Hernandez. Pilot John Makin may also have been aboard the vessel, but, other than the single source that shows he was aboard, he is not mentioned anywhere else, as a pilot on the CSS Atlanta. [10] Both Fleetwood and Hernandez had served previously in the Confederate Army. Fleetwood had only been sent aboard the vessel, from his Georgia regiment, a little over two weeks before the battle, and may not have had enough experience to pilot such a large and cumbersome vessel. Webb's own report of the battle mentions that the vessel had been forced upon the bank not once or twice, but three times, perhaps indicating inefficiency on the part of the pilots. [11]

* Although some comparison may be made to explain the inequality between the combatants, it should be remembered that the main conflict was between the CSS Atlanta (with four guns) and the USS Weehawken (with two guns operational). In spite of the USS Nahant accompanying the USS Weehawken, she remained some distance away, and never fired her guns in support. A total of between 8 and 13 shots were expended all up, the accounts varying between each report. Webb's own report indicates that the CSS Atlanta fired seven shots and he received six from his opponent, with four of these actually hitting the vessel. [11]

* The only casualties of the battle were on the CSS Atlanta, with one sailor being killed and 16 others wounded (one account gives the figure as 17 wounded). The list of names in volume 14 of the Naval Official Records only shows five wounded, so the rest may have actually been sent ashore or directly to Port Royal. The name of the sailor who was killed is not currently known.

* An anecdote of the battle mentions that there being no thought of surrender, the stores of the CSS Atlanta did not include a white flag, and the white portion of the new Naval ensign (see the sketch shown at the top of this page, and accompanying text) had to be torn off and used as a sign of submission. This may be true, as Commander Rodgers of the USS Weehawken himself mentions that a white flag was raised on the CSS Atlanta. [12]

Reference Sources:

[1] See his letter addressed to Secretary of the Navy, Stephen R. Mallory, and addressed from aboard the CSS Atlanta, off Thunderbolt, St. Augustine Creek, Georgia, June 10, 1863, in the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion (hereafter cited as ORN), series 1, volume 14, page 710.

[2] Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, published by the Navy Department, Washington, D.C., (reprint 1977), volume 2, page 565.

[3] In a letter to Secretary Mallory, in ORN series 1, volume 14, page 704, dated aboard the CSS Atlanta, at St. Augustine Creek, Georgia, May 31, 1863, Webb notes that on a trial run down the Savannah River the day before, the main steam valve of the forward engine had packed it in, disabling the engine altogether, and the tide had pushed the vessel into the marsh, where she was still stuck fast at the time of writing.

[4] ORN 1, 14, 276. See also the comments of Union sailor, Alvah F. Hunter, of the USS Nahant, who visited the Atlanta shortly after her capture, and notes, "We were much surprised to find her in such a half-finished condition inside. The entire casemate deck was open from end to end, with only unbleached muslin partitions separating the quarters of the crew from the officers' wardroom aft, and there had manifestly been much haste in getting her ready for service," on page 92 of his excellent "A Year on a Monitor and the Destruction of Fort Sumter," (hereafter cited as Hunter) edited by Craig L. Symonds; published 1987 by the University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

[5] ORN 1, 14, 291.

[6] "History of the Confederate States Navy," by J. Thomas Scharf [hereafter cited as Scharf] originally published 1887; reprinted 1996 by Random House, Avenel, New Jersey, page 645. William N. Still, jr., in his excellent volume, Iron Afloat: The Story of the Confederate Armorclads disputes this statement (that many of the crew were inexperienced), yet both commander Webb himself, as well as Scharf state this as fact. Scharf gives several other data on this subject, which could only have been obtained from someone who was directly connected with the vessel (see page 644).

[7] ORN 1, 14, 288 & 290.

[8] ORN 1, 14, 289-291.

[9] ORN 1, 14, 266-269. See also Scharf 644.

[10] See the entries for Boville and Makin in the "Register of Officers of the Confederate States Navy, 1861-1865," compiled by the Office of Naval Records and Library, United States Navy Department, originally published 1931; reprinted 1983 by J.M. Carroll & Company, Marrituck, New York.

[11] ORN 1, 14, 290-291 & 704.

[12] Hunter 79; ORN 1, 14, 265.

© Terry Foenander.

March, 2003.