The U.S. Preble lies on the bottom of Pensacola Bay, about twenty five feet below the surface of the water. She lies in this bay waiting to bear testament to the realities of a civil war in which she and her crew fought. Built for use in the United States Navy as a sloop-of-war in 1838, she not only served in the American Civil War, but also was involved in many key events in the naval history of the United States during the country’s turbulent decades of growth and its rise to world power status. Included in this growth was the advancement of technology. The Preble, a sailing vessel, was witness to the decline into obsolescence of sail-powered ships, as steam engines rapidly made extinct the use of sail for vessels of war. The U.S. Preble carried naval sailors around the world and represented US presence along African, Japanese, Mexican, European and Confederate shorelines. The operations she conducted represent a set of unique historical episodes in the history of the United States and in this government’s navy. The Preble’s presence in Pensacola Bay today offers us a unique opportunity to record the testament she bears.

The keel for Preble was laid at Portsmouth Naval Yard in April, 1838, and she was launched on June 13, 1839. She was designed as a 3^rd Class, 16-gun sloop, which was made to carry 16 carronades (32-pounders) during peace times, with the addition of two long guns for war. Including Preble, five ships of this class (the Dale class) were

constructed (Table 1). These sloops had a reputation as good sailors, and were designed to be fairly quick and economical for use as cruisers on foreign shores (Chapelle 1949).

There was initial debate concerning the design of this class of sloops which mostly centered around the length of the vessels. The general trend in naval shipbuilding, in Europe as well as the United States, had been toward increasingly larger vessels (ibid.). Larger, more heavily armed vessels had proved to be very effective in the War of 1812. Also, since the early 1840s, the use of steam powered vessels as men of war was becoming more commonplace in naval fleets. However, the United States Board of Navy Commissioners in the 1830s and 40s were considered to have been a very conservative group and did not readily grant permission for the expenditure to build the more experimental steam powered vessels. In augmenting their fleet for services abroad during the late 1830s, the Board called for a class of smaller size sloops-of-war. Because the specifications also required a sixteen guns which would tend to weigh down vessels of smaller displacement, overall length was a source of debate. Several designs were presented by three separate naval constructors: Francis Grice, Josiah Barker, and John Lenthall. Lenthall’s design was eventually accepted with an increase in length from 114’6 to 117’7". The 117’7" length was the same as the 1813 class of sloops that were built by the American Navy for use in the War of 1812. In fact, the Dale class of sloops was practically the same design as the 1813 sloops but deeper and shorter. The transom was not rounded like the 1813 sloops but were modeled after more traditional transom sterns (Chapelle 1949)(figure 1). Table 2 shows the resultant dimensions of the Dale class sloops-of-war.

The sloops’ reputation as stiff, good sailors was also enhanced by their aesthetically pleasing appearances. Their effectiveness in naval battle was never fully tested against the larger sailing ships-of-war of the period. They all enjoyed a solid reputation during their naval careers, however, though their career records as a class have not been fully analyzed, their service during the Civil War (with the exception of the Yorktown which had sunk in the Cape Verde Islands in 1850) indicates that their most common duty was as guard ships in ports held by the Union Navy (Silverstone 1989). The Preble’s career shows that she was called on to perform a wide variety of duties and provided for the US Navy a ship that was relied upon time and again without fail.

The Preble was commissioned into Naval service on June 2, 1840, almost one year after she was launched (ibid). The only records that have been located of the Preble that pertain to her stations from 1840 to 1845 are general, and indicate that she sailed from Labrador after commissioning, and in 1843 cruised in the Mediterranean for a year and a half (Washington Press 1970). By 1845 she was a part of the African Squadron for one year and then returned to New York in 1846 where she received a change of crew and awaited orders (Larson 1994 [1981]).

The United States’ increasing disputes with Mexico over western lands resulted in the declaration of war in May 1846. As part of the war strategy, the United States Navy

affected a blockade in the Gulf waters off of Mexico and accumulated a large Pacific Squadron to provide combined land and sea offenses along the west coast of Mexico. The Preble was called on to join the Pacific Squadron in this war effort, and in September,1846 left New York for the Pacific coast. Sailing down around South America, she joined the Pacific Squadron at Valparaiso in January 1847 and served along the west coast until the conclusion of the war in early February 1848 (Larson 1994 [1981]).

That same month, the Preble was dispatched on special assignment to deliver Captain David Geisenger to take over command of the East India Squadron. Under the command of Captain James Glynn, the Preble arrived in the China Sea in September 1848 and was detained by Captain Geisenger who wished the Preble to remain in that area. Apparently the East India Squadron consisted of only one other ship when Geisenger arrived to take command (Larson 1994[1981]). Because United States’ relations with China were tense at this time, the presence of American warships off of the China coast was desired to serve as a reminder of US power. The Preble anchored in Hong Kong harbor as a visible sign of American presence until February 1849 when she was called to special duty north to the Japan coast. However, her departure was delayed over one month because of a quarantine which resulted from a sailor who had recently been brought aboard in Hong Kong and had broken out with smallpox (ibid). With no further signs of smallpox after a month in waiting, the Preble was able to depart for Japan on March 22.

The United States’ relationship with Japan at the end of the 1840s was one of extreme caution. The establishment of dialogue between the US and Japan was in its infancy and no relationships had yet been formed; very little, in fact, was known about Japan. Thus, the crew of the Preble found themselves in a very uncomfortable position when, without that country’s permission, they sailed into Japanese waters and weighed anchor off Nagasaki on April 17, 1849.

The Preble’s mission was to rescue American merchant marine sailors who were being held in a Japanese prison as spies. While the Preble was at Hong Kong, the US Navy had received word from the Dutch merchants in Canton that the Japanese were holding fifteen American sailors that had been shipwrecked off of the coast of Japan during a whaling expedition. Their whaling ship, the Lagoda, had gone down in the Japan Sea with 1,300 barrels of oil on June 2 after hitting a shoal in heavy fog (Larson 1994 [1981]). Sailing orders to Captain Glynn addressed the issue of international relations:

At the arrival of the Preble in Nagasaki, small boats were sent out to her from which notes attached to bamboo sticks were thrown on board the Preble’s deck. Captain Glynn immediately threw them overboard insisting on being afforded the respect of speaking with a representative in person. Over the next three days, several officials and interpreters came aboard to negotiate with Captain Glynn. The Captain, under frequent questioning about his rank and the disposition of the United States Naval forces, stood his ground and continually argued to speak with higher ranking officials. Glynn delivered an ultimatum on April 22, saying that in three days he would go ashore to speak personally with the governor of Nagasaki for the release of the prisoners. The next day, the American prisoners were released to Dutch traders on shore and conveyed to the Preble. Captain Glynn did not converse with any officials after that and the Preble reported back to the East India Squadron in Hong Kong with the rescued passengers. The Preble then left Hong Kong and sailed for San Francisco on June 11, 1849 (Larson 1994 [1981]).

The success of the Preble’s mission to Japan marked the beginning of effective relations between that country and the United States. Bolstered by Captain Glynn’s reports, the United States sent an expedition led by Commodore Matthew Perry in 1853 that established official diplomatic and trade relations with Japan (ibid). The Preble had been the first United States warship in history to enter Nagasaki harbor and successfully negotiate with the Japanese.

Following almost a decade of service on foreign shores, the Preble returned to New York on January 1, 1851 and was soon assigned to a very different duty. She was placed in Annapolis, Maryland to serve as a practice ship for midshipmen attending the US Naval Academy. The Preble’s duties included an annual summer cruise to Europe for the training of the midshipmen. This marked the first time that an "uninterrupted four-year course" was available from the Academy. The first foreign summer cruise of the Naval Academy was made by the Preble in the summer of 1852. The sloop-of-war continued to serve in this capacity until 1858 when she was placed back in ordinary.

The reasons for the Preble’s placement back into service are not clear, but soon afterward she was ordered to the coast of Paraguay accompanied by 18 other vessels with the expectation of engagement. The Paraguayan government had fired on the US Naval sidewheel sloop Water Witch. The Paraguay Expedition ended peaceably with the apology of the Paraguayan government and a payment of indemnity, and the vessels were soon called back (Washington Press 1970).

As the Preble returned from Paraguay to New York, dissatisfaction between the northern and southern states in the United States was increasing. The Preble’s station between September 1860, when she returned from abroad, and when she began her service in the Civil War after April 1861 was probably in the northeast coast of the United States. However, three months after the Civil War broke out, her name appears on the list of ships assigned to the Gulf Blockade Squadron at Key West (Official Records of the Confederate and Union Navies in the War of the Rebellion (ORCUN), series I, vol, 16).

On April 19, days after the outbreak of the Civil War, a blockade of all seceded states’ ports was called by President Abaraham Lincoln in response to Jefferson Davis’ proclamation sanctioning privateering against northern merchant shipping (Anderson 1962). Such a blockade would deny the Confederacy of essential supplies and thus slowly squeeze the life out of the rebel states. With a naval strategy designed to restrict all commerce between Europe and the southern states established, efforts toward that end became the primary task of the Navy. This strategy, labeled the Anaconda Plan, eventually called for an entire blockade of the southern coastlines from Norfolk, Virginia to the Rio Grande in Texas. The Preble was to aid in the blockade of the Gulf states. Official naval correspondence dated 15 November 1861 lists the Preble as being at Berwick Bay off of the Mississippi area on blockade duty with the Gulf Blockading Squadron (ORCUN 16:769). A correspondence dated November 26, 1861 from Flag Officer William W. Mckean to commander H. French of the Preble reveals the nature of her duties at this time:

The US Naval fleet was divided into four major commands by the end of January, 1862: the North and South Atlantic Blockading Squadrons, and the East and West Gulf Blockading Squadrons. The East and West Gulf Blockading Squadrons were originally a single entity – the Gulf Blockading Squadron. However, by January of 1862, the Squadron was split into two different commands. The Preble, having been originally assigned to the East Gulf Blockading Squadron when the division of the Gulf Blockade Squadron occurred, was switched to the West Gulf Blockading Squadron at the request of that squadron’s commander, David G. Farragut, in February 1862 (ORCUN 18:36). In late January of 1862, the command of the West Gulf Blockading Squadron (WGBS) had been placed under Captain Farragut whose orders were to maintain a blockade of the coastline between Appalachicola Bay, Florida and the Rio Grande in Texas. In addition, Farragut was to use portions of his squadron to establish control of the Mississippi River from New Orleans to Vicksburg, and to eventually occupy Mobile Bay (Anderson 1962, ORCUN 17). As a member of this squadron, the Preble spent the first part of the war with that portion of Farragut’s ships that were to concentrate on establishing control of the Mississippi River.

The change to the West Gulf Blockading Squadron did not alter the Preble’s actual station; she was traded to that squadron partly because she was already in the area. The Preble had been stationed in the Mississippi River area since September 1861. By January 1862, prior to Farragut’s command of the West Gulf Blockading Squadron, she was on duty at Southwest Pass to aid in the blockade of Head of Passes with the sloop-of-war Vincennes, and three steamers, the U.S.S. Mercidita, U.S.S. Colorado, and the gunboat Winona (ORCUN 17:71). Head of Passes was an area at the mouth of the Mississippi River where three major channels of the river converged – these were the only channels allowing egress for large vessels from that river into the Gulf.

This area was the rendezvous point from which Farragut’s squadron would undertake the attempted control of the river up to Vicksburg. Between the period of September 1861 and February 1862, these four ships were on blockade duty at Head of Passes while the remainder of the squadron was being assembled at Ship Island, 60 miles to the east. It was here that the Preble saw her most engaging actions in the war. On October 12, 1861 the confederate ram Manassas made a surprise attack on the vessels at Head of Passes in the dark of night. All Union vessels were caught by surprise and the Preble, despite not having steam power, was able to maneuver well enough to maintain a defensive position beside the Vincennes which had been rammed upon the initial attack (though without much resultant damage). Several fire rafts were cast adrift from the rebels upstream and the steamers frantically retreated with two subsequently running aground. Only minor damage was sustained by the Union vessels, however, "ram fever" ran amok throughout the crews (Thompson and Wainwright, eds., 1920). This was the fiercest engagement that the Preble saw during the Civil War.

The Preble did not accompany Farragut’s offensives on New Orleans, but continued to serve on blockade duty between Head of Passes and Mobile Bay in 1862 . By March 16, 1862 the Preble was on extended blockade duty outside of Mobile Bay with a sailing bark, the Bohio, and two larger steam driven vessels, the Kanawha and the USS Susquehanna (ORCUN 19:104). However, the Preble was briefly assigned duty up the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge where Brigadeer General Williams of the US Army expressed relief that she

was anchored off of that town to help guard against land attacks from Confederate forces that were rumored to be gathering nearby (ORCUN 18:107).

On September 19, 1862, the Preble received orders to report to Pensacola for duty there as a guard ship (ORCUN 19). Little is known about her actions in Pensacola between this date and April, 1863. Lists of vessels in service to the WGBS, however, show that she was stationed in Pensacola during this entire period (ORCUN 19:478, 595, 641; 20; 27). The Preble’s career came to an abrupt in Pensacola Bay in late April when she was accidently set afire. The details of this episode are discussed later in this paper so as to illuminate her transition into the archaeological record. We turn now to a revealing discussion of her performance afloat during the Civil War.

The officers working the blockade of the western Gulf often wrote to Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles of the difficulty in using ships of sail, such as the Preble, for blockade duty. The most serious problem, the officers noted, was their inability to chase blockade runners under steam. This problem highlighted one of the most interesting aspects of the naval efforts in the Civil War – the decline of sailing vessels of war and the rise of steam powered vessels.

The Civil War marked a period in naval history in which the largest variety of ships ever used was placed in commission. This was largely due to the increasing use of steam powered ships. The sailing ships used by the US Navy were fast becoming obsolete, and the majority of sailing vessels were used as supply ships, store ships, or for some other secondary purpose. The majority of the force that the US Navy used in aggressive movements against the Confederacy (including offensives and blockading) was comprised of steamships. However, the Preble, and a few other sloops-of-war, were actually utilized for more aggressive positions such as blockading and as guard ships. There use in these capacities, however, was not without misgivings by naval officers.

Several complaints related to the ineffectiveness of the Preble as a blockader have been noted from correspondences. Commander McKean, when first assigning the Preble and Vincennes (another sailing sloop of war) to Head of Passes in late December 1861 noted that he considered it "highly important¼ that a light steamer should also be stationed at the (Head of Passes), in the event of a fast steamer getting by the heavy ships, that (it) might be pursued.", though whether he meant the "heavy ships" to include the other larger steamers that were to be stationed there also is not clear (ORCUN, 17: 35-36). Farragut’s assessment of the use of the sail powered vessels he had at his disposal for blockading seemed lackluster. On taking command of the WGBS in February 1862 , Farragut implied that he had no other choice than to use the fourteen sailing vessels he had at his disposal as blockaders because most of the steamers would be employed for bombardments. Writing of the limitations of the sailing ships, Farragut states, "¼ and you are well aware that they are very insufficient guard against steamers, particularly in calm weather, but I promise to do the best I can with them" (Thompson and Wainwright, eds., 1920). His strategy for their use in this capacity was to "¼ place them to the best advantage, and make them lie there until relieved"(ibid). When the Preble was on extended blockade duty off of Mobile in early July, 1862, commander of the Mobile blockade R.B. Hitchcock noted that with three vessels in service, two steamers and the sloop, it takes "one of the steamers to look out for the sailing vessel" (ORCUN 18:691). Several letters written by him that year included requests for more steamers in order to make the blockade more effectual.

Regardless of complaints, the Preble and the Vincennes, two sloops-of-war, were able to fill a need when called upon. It was acknowledged that these sloops would not be able to outmaneuver a steaming blockade runner. However, the sloops’ effectiveness in their roles seems to have been good. Most of the tasks of guarding the coastlines including: serving as extended lookouts, discouraging blockade runners by presence alone, and firing on running vessels, was maintained.

Destruction of the Preble

On 27 April 1863, while the Preble was at anchor off of the town of Pensacola, the ship’s corporal William J. Wilson was emptying a barrel of tar oil into "the tank" when an open flame of undetermined origin (a cigarette? a lantern?) ignited the oil (ORCUN 20:153). At 9:30 a.m. "the alarm of fire was made" and after forty-five minutes of attempting to control the flames, commanding officer William F. Shankland gave the word for "all hands leave the ship"(ibid). The ship was left burning at anchor and an explosion occurred after she had been burning for about one and one-half hours (ORCUN 20:155). The Preble then burned to the water line and sank. Surgeon James S. Knight reported that W. J. Wilson died in the fire and that four others were burned about the feet, hands or face but without any further loss of life. Though no records have yet been located concerning an inquiry, no blame appears to have been placed on the acting master W.F. Shankland. An accompanying letter by Commanding Senior Officer A. Gibson dated 28 April 1865 (sent with Shankland’s initial notification to Secretary Welles of the incident) stated that "From all I can learn no blame can be attached to the Commanding Officer of the Preble" (ORCUN 20:153). Indeed, Shankland’s probable exoneration is supported by the fact that, 1864, he was reassigned as a ship commander futher north. Due to the rapidity of the destruction, no guns were salvaged, and the "officers and men lost all of their personal effects." The last listing of armaments aboard the Preble included: 4 eight-inch guns (63 cwt), 12 thirty-two pound guns (33 cwt), and 2 twenty pound muzzle loading rifles (Silverstone 1989). In addition to these items, the Preble was carrying a cargo of copper in her hold when she sank (Chief Engineer 1874).

Available records indicate that the Preble now lies within 25 feet of water off southeast of the mouth of Bayou Chico where she had burned and sank 130 years ago. The accounts of her sinking by Commander Shankland indicate that she went down with very little having been saved from below decks. Though her burning was significant, there is still a possibility that a large portion of her hull below the waterline remains intact.

There have been no major attempts to relocate and record the disposition of the Preble in the latter third of the 20^th century with the exception of a crew of Navy divers who were assigned the task of removing her mast probably because it was considered a hazard to navigation Apparently the location of what was considered to be the wrec of the Preble was known to various sailors and fishermen during the 1950s and 60s. A man who had long fished on the wreckage of what he said was the Preble led naval employees to investigate the area south of the mouth of Bayou Chico. They located the wreckage on April 27, 1863 – exactly one hundred years after the Preble sank (Pensacola News Journal (PNJ), 28 April 1963, 8B). The navy team recovered the "main mast stub" and a spar, as well as some tackle and rigging from the wreckage (figure 2). They also reported that "ribs" were sticking up out of the mud at regular intervals, and that about 60 feet of wreckage was visible on the bay bottom (ibid). It should be noted that this wreck was not conclusively identified as the Preble, however its location corresponds with that noted on a map from the report of the chief engineer at the Pensacola Naval Yard in 1879 showing the Preble wreck. This 1879 report also states that the Preble "lies directly between the end of Palafox Street Wharf and the Navy Yard chimney, and about 1/8^th the distance from the wharf to the Navy

Yard." The items recovered by the Navy divers from the wreck suggest it was from a vessel of large size. The portion of mast recovered was reported to have had manila rope hanging from it that crumbled when touched, and to have been about three feet in diameter and then tapered to two feet, and was "wooden with an outside coating of about one-half inch iron plating" (ibid). The team also recovered "a wooden tackle of the type used to hold running-rigging¼; a spider, from the end of the mast spar; barnacle-covered wooden reels; and what appears to be a main-mast shackle"(ibid). The location of these items is unknown.

Several surveys of the underwater archaeological resources of the Pensacola area have been undertaken within the last two decades (Tesar 1973; Tidewater Atlantic Research 1987; Franklin, Morris and Smith 1992; Bratten 1998). Only one of these projects (Bratten 1998) has conducted activities in the proposed vicinity of the Preble. This project involved the utilization of a sidescan sonar and a magnetometer for an electronic survey of the area. The report of this investigation noted many solid magnetometer readings over what was described as a large debris field approximately 3/4 mile off the Pensacola Auditorium (Bratten 1998, 9). Though divers did not ground truth the anomalies, the debris is located in the same area as that which the Preble is alleged to be lying. An earlier investigation of the Pensacola Bay area (Smith et al. 1992) conducted a similar survey, but did not attempt to locate the Preble. Smith et al. (1992) reported that the Preble was known to have presently been entirely covered with sediment due to recent dredging activities. However, no further information was pursued.

The relocation and recordation of the Preble wreck as an archaeological site should be of tantamount importance to the preservation of this historic and archaeological resource. An initial ground truthing of the site is needed to establish the probability of the Preble’s exact location. If this is established, then recordation would be sufficient to assign an archaeological site number to the wreck and place it on the state and federal site databases. The wreck is presumably protected from illegal looting by the amount of sediment covering it, however, her exact location needs to be documented in order to protect the wreck from future dredging operations.

The wreck of the Preble is located in Florida waters and as such is subject to Florida’s Historic Resources Act which specifies that no item can be taken from the wreck without proper permitting from the State. In addition, US warships are not considered to be abandoned under the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act of 1987. Therefore, jurisdiction of this ship belongs to the US Navy, and all subsequent work on the remains of this ship would have to be permitted by the Navy. However, because the Preble had such a unique career in service to this department, a Navy grant for the archaeological investigation of this ship could be a plausible reality.

If the Preble wreck is investigated and found to have intact deposits, the significance of the site would probably make it eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The Preble’s service in the US Navy during the mid-nineteenth century included participation in several events that were of great importance to the history of this nation – her’s was the first successful voyage to Japan, she was the first ship to offer a summer semester for the US Naval Academy, and she participated in two wars. The design of the Preble represents a unique class of sloops that were the last of their kind in the history of US Naval war vessels -- she was built as one of the last class of sailing vessels before the dominance of steam powered vessels replaced the use of sail. Further research of the Preble’s service career would certainly help to better understand the events she participated in as well as help to illuminate the transition from sails to steam in the mid-nineteenth century. In addition, the material items that were lost with the ship offer valuable information concerning life aboard a Civil War vessel, armaments of the Civil War, and the supplies required for Naval operations during this war. The Preble’s story is one that is intimately associated with the development of the United States. Much of that story is still tangibly accessible within her timbers.

Anderson, Bern

1962 By Sea and by River: The Naval History of the Civil War, New York: Alfred A.

Knopf 1962.

Bratten, John

1997 Cooperative Effort of the University of West Florida and United States Navy

Waterways. Arcaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Chapelle, Howard I.

1949 The History of the American Sailing Navy, the Ships and Their Development,

W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., New York.

Franklin, Marianne, Roger C. Smith, and Morris

1992 Pensacola Shipwreck Survey, Phase I.

Larson, Sarah

1992 "East India Squadron Letters: A Passage of Arms", in Prologue, 1994, vol. 6

(Special Issue): 36-43.

Office of Secretary of the Navy,

1903 Official Records of the Confederate and Union Navies in the War of the

Rebellion, series I, vols. 16 - 20, 27. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Pensacola News Journal

1964 "Sunken Ship Discovery Sets Off New Speculation Over Vessels in

Harbor", article by Earle Bowden, April 28, p. 8B.

Silverstone, Paul H.

1989 Warships of the Civil War Navies, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis.

Tesar Louis D.

1973 Archaeological Survey and Testing of Gulf Islands National Seashore. Part I:

Florida, Hale G. Smith, ed. Department of Anthropology, Florida State

University, Tallahassee.

Thompson, Robert Means and Richard Wainwright, eds.

1920 Confidential Correspondence of Gustavus Vasa Fox, Assistant Secretary of the

Navy 1861-1865, vol. I, Naval History Society.

Tidewater Atlantic Research

1987 Underwater Archaeological Investigations: Gulf of Mexico and Pensacola Bay,

Florida. Prepared for the Southern Division Naval Facilities, Engineering

Command, Charleston.

Boynton, Charles B.

1867 The History of the Navy During the Civil War of the Rebellion, vols. I and II. New

York: D.Appleton and Company. Facsimile.

Jones, Virgil Carrington.

1960 The Civil War at Sea, Vol. I, January 1861 to March 1862: The Blockaders. New

York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Pearce, George F.

1980 The US Navy in Pensacola, from Sailing Ships to Naval Aviation (1825-1930).

Pensacola: University of Florida Presses.