Produced by Colin Bell, Louise Pattison, Joseph Cooper and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
[Transcriber's Notes:
This is Paper 39 from the Smithsonian Institution United States National
Museum Bulletin 240, comprising Papers 34-44, which will also be
available as a complete e-book.
The front material, introduction and relevant index entries from the
Bulletin are included in each single-paper e-book.
Note that several Figures in this paper consist of two images separated
from each other in the original layout, with separate labels. These
separate labels are preserved in this text only version.
Typographical errors have been corrected as follows:
P152: "the _Simon & Jude_, later called _Invention I_" (was "latter").
P159: "Its importance is that it..." (was "is that is").
Index: "Emmet, ----, 144" (was Emmett).]
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM
BULLETIN 240
[Illustration]
SMITHSONIAN PRESS
MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY
CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM THE
MUSEUM
OF HISTORY AND
TECHNOLOGY
_Papers 34-44_
_On Science and Technology_
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION . WASHINGTON, D.C. 1966
_Publications of the United States National Museum_
The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National
Museum include two series, _Proceedings of the United States National
Museum_ and _United States National Museum Bulletin_.
In these series, the Museum publishes original articles and monographs
dealing with the collections and work of its constituent museums--The
Museum of Natural History and the Museum of History and
Technology--setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of
anthropology, biology, history, geology, and technology. Copies of each
publication are distributed to libraries, to cultural and scientific
organizations, and to specialists and others interested in the different
subjects.
The _Proceedings_, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in
separate form, of shorter papers from the Museum of Natural History.
These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date
of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume.
In the _Bulletin_ series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear
longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in
several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related
subjects. _Bulletins_ are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on
the needs of the presentation. Since 1902 papers relating to the
botanical collections of the Museum of Natural History have been
published in the _Bulletin_ series under the heading _Contributions from
the United States National Herbarium_, and since 1959, in _Bulletins_
titled "Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology," have
been gathered shorter papers relating to the collections and research of
that Museum.
The present collection of Contributions, Papers 34-44, comprises
Bulletin 240. Each of these papers has been previously published in
separate form. The year of publication is shown on the last page of each
paper.
FRANK A. TAYLOR
_Director, United States National Museum_
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
PAPER 39
FULTON'S "STEAM BATTERY":
BLOCKSHIP AND CATAMARAN
_Howard I. Chapelle_
SURVIVING DESIGNS FOR FLOATING BATTERIES 145
CONTROVERSIAL DESCRIPTIONS 147
COPENHAGEN PLANS 150
HISTORY OF DOUBLE-HULL CRAFT 152
SAIL AND INBOARD PLANS 157
RECONSTRUCTING THE PLANS 161
APPENDIX 167
[FOOTNOTES]
[INDEX]
[Illustration: Figure 1.--SCALE MODEL of Fulton's _Steam Battery_ in
the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo P-63390-F.)]
_Howard I. Chapelle_
FULTON'S "STEAM BATTERY": BLOCKSHIP and CATAMARAN
_Robert Fulton's "Steam Battery," a catamaran-type blockship, was built
during the War of 1812. Until recently, not enough material has been
available to permit a reasonably accurate reconstruction of what is
generally acknowledged to be the first steam man-of-war._
_With the discovery, in the Danish Royal Archives at Copenhagen, of
plans of this vessel, it is now possible to prepare a reconstruction and
to build a model._
_This article summarizes the history of the vessel, describes the plans
and the reconstruction, and also evaluates its design with particular
attention to the double-hull construction._
THE AUTHOR: _Howard I. Chapelle is curator of transportation in the
Smithsonian Institution's Museum of History and Technology._
The identity of the first steam man-of-war has been known for many
years, and a great deal has been written and published on the history of
this American vessel. Until recently, the only available drawing of the
ship has been a patent drawing made for Robert Fulton. This does not
comply with contemporary descriptions of the steamer and the drawing or
plan is out of proportion with the known dimensions. The lack of plans
has heretofore made it impossible to illustrate the vessel with any
degree of precision, or to build a scale model.
The discovery in 1960 of some of the plans of this historic ship in the
Danish Royal Archives at Copenhagen now makes possible a reasonably
accurate reconstruction of the vessel and also clarifies some of the
incomplete and often confusing descriptions by contemporary writers.
Of the numerous published accounts of the ship that are available, the
most complete is David B. Tyler's "Fulton's Steam Frigate."[1] A
contemporary description of the vessel by the British Minister to
Washington, 1820-23, Stratford Canning, was published by Arthur J.
May.[2] In _Naval and Mail Steamers of the United States_, by Charles B.
Stuart,[3] and _The Steam Navy of the United States_, by Frank M.
Bennett,[4] the history of the ship and some descriptive facts are
given. Stuart, in an appendix, gives in full the report of the
Supervisory Committee (set up to administer the building contract).
Tyler and Stuart, and the Committee Report are the principal sources
from which the following summary of the ship's history is drawn.
[Text of Illustration: Plate N^o. 1.
"DEMOLOGOS"
Figure 1^st. _Transverse section A her Boiler. B the steam Engine. C the
water wheel. E E her wooden walls 5 feet thick, diminishing to below the
waterline as at F.F draught of water 9 feet D D her gun deck_
_Scale 1/12 inch=1 foot_
Waterline
_Scale 1/24 inch=1 foot_
Figure II^d. _This shews her gun deck, 140 feet long 24 feet wide,
mounting 20 guns. A the Water wheel_
Figure III^d
_Side View_
_Scale 1/24 inch=1 foot_
ROBERT FULTON
_November 1813._
_S M^c Elroy del._
_"Stuart's Naval & Mail Steamers U.S."_
_Sarony & Major. Eng. N.Y._]
[Illustration: Figure 2.--"DEMOLOGOS," A WOOD ENGRAVING based on the
sketch which Robert Fulton showed to President Madison in 1813. This
wood engraving appears as plate 1 in Charles B. Stuart's _Naval and Mail
Steamers of the United States_, and illustrates the section on Naval
Steamers, from which the account "The Demologos; or, Fulton the First,"
is here reproduced (pp. 167-171). Stuart obtained the sketch, assumed to
have been made for Fulton's patent on the design of the _Steam Battery_,
from the files of the U.S. Navy Department.]
On December 24, 1813, Robert Fulton invited a group of
friends--prominent merchants, professional men and naval officers--to
his home in New York City and there presented a proposal for a project
of great local interest. At that time the War of 1812 was in its second
year and the economic effect of the British naval blockade was being
felt severely. The blockade cut off seaborne trade and posed a constant
threat of attack upon New York and other important ports, particularly
Baltimore. To defend the ports, it had been proposed to build mobile
floating batteries or heavily built and armed hulks with small sailing
rigs, but the high cost of these and their doubtful value in helping to
break the blockade, compared to the value and action of a very heavy,
large frigate, or a 74-gun ship, caused authorities to hesitate to
proceed with the construction of any blockships or floating batteries.
Fulton's proposal concerned a floating battery propelled by steam
power. He believed that steam propulsion not only would give it
effective maneuverability with no loss of gunpower, but also would allow
a successful attack upon the Royal Navy blockading ships during periods
of protracted calm, when sailing men-of-war were nearly helpless. The
blockaders then could be attacked and picked off, one by one, by the
heavily armed steamboat.
Among those present at the meeting was Major General Henry Dearborn, a
leading citizen and soldier who was later to become noted in American
political history. The first step taken during this meeting was the
founding of the Coast and Harbor Defense Company with Dearborn as
president, Fulton as engineer, and Thomas Morris as secretary. Next, a
committee was established to raise funds from Federal, State, and New
York City governments as well as from individual contributors to build
the battery. The members of this committee consisted of General
Dearborn, Commodore Stephen Decatur, U.S.N.; General Morgan Lewis;
Commodore Jacob Jones; U.S.N.; Noah Brown, shipbuilder; Samuel L.
Mitchill; Henry Rutgers; and Thomas Morris.
The committee proved cumbersome and was reduced to General Lewis, Issac
Bronson, Henry Rutgers, Nathan Sanford, Thomas Morris, Oliver Wolcott,
and John Jacob Astor. Known as the Coast Defense Society and with the
name of _Pyremon_ given the ship in prospectus, they attempted,
unsuccessfully, to raise funds privately.
The estimated sums to build a battery 130 feet long, with a 50-foot
beam, capable of a speed of 5 mph, and carrying 24 long guns (18-pdr.),
was $110,000. Fulton, still the chief engineer, in an effort to interest
the Federal Government, built a model of the proposed vessel and
submitted it to some prominent naval officers--Commodore Stephen
Decatur, Jacob Jones, James Biddle, Samuel Evans, Oliver Perry, Samuel
Warrington, and Jacob Lewis. All gave their support to the Society in a
written statement and this recommendation proved helpful to the project
in Congress and in the Navy Department. In the process of passing a bill
which went to the Senate Naval Affairs Committee calling for $250,000
for the construction of the floating battery, the sum was raised to
$1,500,000 for the construction of "one or more" floating batteries and
passed on March 9, 1814.
To supervise the start of construction, the Coast Defense Society
appointed a committee consisting of Dearborn, Wolcott, Morris, Mitchill,
and Rutgers, with Fulton as engineer, and a model and drawing of the
proposed vessel was submitted to the Patent Office. The Secretary of the
Navy, although supporting the project, delayed action until he had
weighed the importance of the batteries in relation to other war needs,
for at this time the naval shipbuilding program on the Great Lakes was
considered of prime importance. He also raised some technical questions
concerning the design of the batteries, which Fulton answered with a
description of the vessel as 138 feet on deck, 120 feet on the keel, 55
feet beam (each hull to have a 20-foot beam and the "race" between to be
15 feet wide), draft 8 or 9 feet loaded, and the intended speed was to
be 4-1/2 to 5 mph. The ship was to carry 24 long guns (32-pdr.), the
engine was to be 130 hp, and the total cost, $200,000. In his letters to
the Secretary of the Navy, Fulton stated that Adam and Noah Brown would
build the hull for $69,800 and that he would build the engine, machinery
and boilers for $78,000, a total of $147,800. He intended to have the
boilers, valves, fastenings, and air pumps of brass or copper, which
would raise the machinery costs 59 percent above that of stationary
engines and boilers then in use.
On May 23, 1814, the Secretary of the Navy authorized the Coast Defense
Society and its committee to act as Navy agents and to enter into the
contracts required to build a vessel, and to draw on the Navy
storekeepers or Navy Yard commandants for such stores or articles on
hand needed for construction. The contracts were prepared and the
committee now was officially empowered to act for the Society, with
Rutgers, Wolcott, Morris, Dearborn, Mitchill, and Fulton. On June 4,
Dearborn asked the Navy Department for $25,000 advance, for work had
started. On the 6th, he informed the Secretary that he had been ordered
to assume command of the defenses of Boston and that Rutgers had been
appointed chairman of the construction committee in his place.
It is apparent that the Navy Department was pressed for funds, due to
the very extensive shipbuilding programs on Lakes Erie, Ontario, and
Champlain in addition to the seagoing vessels being built in some of the
coastal ports. This was certainly one cause for the Secretary of the
Navy's reluctance to carry out the requirements of the bill passed by
Congress immediately after its signature and, also, this reluctance
caused the supervisory committee much embarrassment in its
administration of the contract.
Another factor which caused difficulty in the administration of the
contract was the position of Adam and Noah Brown. The brothers were
deeply involved in the shipbuilding program on the Lakes, in which they
were associated at times with Henry Eckford. The Browns constructed a
blockhouse, shops, and quarters at Erie; in addition to Perry's two
brigs and five of his schooners, they also built some of the Lake
Ontario vessels and, later, the _Saratoga_ on Lake Champlain. In their
New York yard, whose operation continued throughout the war, they built
some large letter-of-marques: the _General Armstrong_, _Prince de
Neufchatel_, _Zebra_, _Paul Jones_, and some smaller vessels. They also
cut down the 2-decked, merchant ship _China_ into a single flush-deck
letter-of-marque, renamed _Yorktown_; and they had a contract to build
the sloop-of-war _Peacock_. It is remarkable that the Browns could
undertake and complete so much work between 1813 and 1815 and still be
able to build the steam battery in a very short time.
With the contracts in order, the Browns began building. The keels of the
battery were laid June 20, 1814. It is apparent that the Browns prepared
the original hull plans, undoubtedly before the building authority was
obtained. The vessel required only about four months to build; she was
launched October 29, 1814, at 9 a.m. This was an excellent performance,
considering the size of the vessel, the amount of timber required and
handled in her massive construction, and the other work being done by
the builders. During the ship's construction, sightseers were a nuisance
and finally guards had to be obtained. During the building of the steam
battery, work had to be practically stopped on the sloop-of-war
_Peacock_ at one period after she had been partially planked.
There were difficulties in obtaining metalwork for the vessel during her
construction, due to the blockade and the demand for such material for
other shipbuilding at New York. On November 21, 1814, the ship was towed
from the Browns' yard on the East River by Fulton's _Car of Neptune_ and
_Fulton_, each lashed to the sides of the battery, and taken to Fulton's
works on the North River. There Fulton supervised in person the
completion of the vessel and construction of her machinery. Undoubtedly
only a little of his time was required in inspection of the Browns' work
on the battery, for the shipbuilders had been closely associated with
Fulton throughout the life of the project and were fully capable as ship
designers. The work on the machinery was another matter, however, for
men capable of working metal were scarce and few workmen could read
plans. Fulton had some of the work done outside of his own plant,
particularly the brass and copper work (mostly by John Youle's foundry).
As a result, Fulton was required to move from plant to plant, keeping
each job under almost constant observation and personally supervising
the workmen. The equipment then available for building a large engine
was inadequate in many ways. The large steam cylinder presented a
problem: it had to be recast several times and some of the other parts
gave trouble, either in casting or in machining and fitting.
[Illustration: Figure 3.--SCALE MODEL of _Steam Battery_, showing double
hull, in the Museum of History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo
P-63390-D.)]
Guns for the battery were another problem. Only 3 long guns (32-pdr.),
were available at the Navy Yard. The Secretary of the Navy promised some
captured guns then at Philadelphia. Because of the blockade, these had
to come overland to New York. The captured guns thus obtained were
probably English, part of the cargo of the British ship _John of
Lancaster_ captured by the frigate _President_ early in the war.
Apparently 24 guns were obtained this way; only 2 were obtained from the
Navy Yard. In July the Supervising Committee carried out some
experimental damage studies, in which a 32-pdr. was fired at a target
representing a section of the topsides of the battery. Drawings of the
result were sent to the Secretary of the Navy.
Further problems arose over the delays of the government in making
payments: the banks discounted the Treasury notes, so the Committee
members had to advance $5,000 out of their own pockets. There was fear
that British agents might damage the vessel, and although the project
was undoubtedly known to the British, no evidence of any act of sabotage
was ever found. Captain David Porter was assigned to the command of the
battery in November, and it was upon his request that the vessel was
later rigged with sails.
With the _Steam Battery_ approaching completion, the Secretary of the
Navy became more enthusiastic and the construction of other batteries of
this type was again proposed. Captain Stiles, a Baltimore merchant,
offered to build a steam battery, the hull to cost $50,000; the entire
cost of the vessel, $150,000, was raised in Baltimore and the frames of
a battery erected. Another battery was projected at Philadelphia and the
Secretary of the Navy wanted one or more built at Sackett's Harbor, but
naval officers and Fulton objected. A bill put before Congress to
authorize another half million to build steam batteries passed the first
reading January 9, 1815, went to the House February 22, 1815, but the
end of the war prevented any further action on it.
On February 24, 1815, Fulton died. He had been to Trenton, New Jersey,
to attend a hearing on the steamboat monopoly and, on the way back, the
ferry on North River was caught in the ice. Fulton and his lawyer,
Emmet, had to walk over the ice to get ashore. On the way, Emmet fell
through and Fulton got wet and chilled while helping him. After two or
three days in bed Fulton went to his foundry to inspect the battery's
machinery causing a relapse from which he died. This resulted in some
delay in completing the machinery and stopped work on the _Mute_, an
80-foot, manually propelled, torpedo boat that Fulton was having built
in the Browns' yard.
It was decided to suspend work on the Baltimore battery after an
expenditure of $61,500, but the New York battery was to be completed to
prove the project was practical. The final payment of $50,000 was made
four months after it was requested.
Charles Stoudinger, Fulton's foreman or superintendent, was able to
complete and install the ship's machinery. On June 10, 1815, the vessel
was given a short trial run in the harbor with Stoudinger and the Navy
inspector, Captain Smith, on board. This trial revealed the need of some
mechanical alterations; sails were not used, and it was found she could
stem the strong tide and a fresh headwind. The vessel also was visited
by the officers of French men-of-war at anchor in the harbor.
On July 4, 1815, she was given another trial. She left Fulton's works at
Corlear's Hook at 9 a.m., ran out to Sandy Hook Lighthouse, bore west
and returned, a total of 53 miles under steam, reaching her slip at 5:20
p.m. She was found to steer "like a pilot boat." This prolonged trial
revealed that the stokehold was not sufficiently ventilated and more
deck openings were required. The windsails used in existing hatches were
inadequate. The paddle wheel was too low and had to be raised 18 inches,
and there were still some desirable modifications to be made in the
machinery.
On September 11, 1815, she was again given a trial run. All alterations
had been made, including the addition of hatches and raising the paddle
wheel, and her battery was on board with all stores, supplies, and
equipment. She had 26 long guns (32-pdr.), mounted on pivoted carriages,
and now drew 10 feet 4 inches. On this day she left her slip at 8:38
a.m. and went through the Narrows into the Lower Bay, where she
maneuvered around the new frigate _Java_ at anchor there. The battery
then was given a thorough trial under steam and sail and, with the ship
underway, her guns were fired to see if concussion would damage the
machinery. The vessel was found to be a practical one, capable of
meeting the government's requirements in all respects; her speed was
5-1/2 knots. However, the stokehold temperature had reached 116 deg.
Fahrenheit! She returned to her slip at 7:00 p.m.
On December 28, 1815, the Committee in a written report to the
Secretary of the Navy,[5] gave a description of the vessel and praised
her performance. At this time a set of plans was made by "Mr. Morgan,"
of whom no other reference has appeared, and sent to the Navy
Department. These cannot now be found. The Committee recommended the
battery be commissioned and used for training purposes. This suggestion
was not followed.
The ship remained in her slip during the winter, and in June 1816 she
was turned over to the Navy and delivered to Captain Samuel Evans,
commandant of the New York Navy Yard. Captain Joseph Bainbridge was
assigned to her command. However, she was not commissioned and soon
after her delivery she was housed over and placed "in ordinary," that
is, laid up. The final settlement showed that the Committee, as Navy
agents, had paid out $286,162.12 with $872.00 unpaid, as well as a claim
for $3,364.00 by Adam and Noah Brown, making a total of $290,398.12.
The following year, on June 18, 1817, she was unroofed and put into
service with a small crew. With President James Monroe on board, she
left the Navy Yard about noon for a short trip to the Narrows and then
to Staten Island and returned in the evening. The next day she was again
placed "in ordinary."
Four years later, in 1821, when her guns and machinery were removed, it
was found that she was rapidly becoming rotten. She was then utilized as
a receiving ship. At 2:30 p.m. on June 4, 1829, she blew up, killing 24
men and 1 woman, with 19 persons listed as injured. Among those killed
was one officer, Lt. S. M. Brackenridge. Two lieutenants and a Sailing
Master were hurt, four midshipmen were severely injured, and five
persons were listed as missing. The explosion of 2-1/2 barrels of
condemned gunpowder was sufficient, due to her rotten condition, to
destroy the ship completely. A Court of Inquiry blamed a 60-year-old
gunner, who supposedly entered a magazine with a candle to get powder
for the evening gun. It was stated to the court that about 300 pounds of
powder in casks and in cartridges was on board the ship at the time.[3]
She was not replaced until the coast-defense steamer _Fulton_ was built
in 1837-38, though in 1822 the Navy purchased for $16,000 a "steam
galliot" of 100 tons, the _Sea Gull_, to be used as a dispatch boat for
the West Indian squadron engaged in suppressing piracy during 1823. In
1825 she was laid up at Philadelphia, and in 1840 she was sold for
$4,750.
It is a curious fact that the battery did not receive an official name,
as did the sailing blockship on the ways at New Orleans, which at the
end of the War of 1812 was officially listed as the _Tchifonta_. Nor was
the battery given a number, as were the gunboats. In official
correspondence and lists, the steam battery is referred to as the
"Fulton Steam Frigate," or as the "Steam Battery," but in later years
she was referred to as the "Fulton" or "Fulton the First." Perhaps the
explanation is that as she was the only one of her kind she was not
numbered, and as she was not considered fit for coastal or extended
ocean voyages, she was not given a name.
Surviving Designs for Floating Batteries
The designs of American blockships that have survived are those of the
_Tchifonta_,[6] 145 feet long, 43-foot moulded beam, 8-foot 6-inch depth
in hold, and about 152 feet 9 inches on deck. She was to carry a battery
of 22 long guns (32-pdr.), on the main deck 12 carronades (42-pdr.), on
forecastle and quarter decks. She was to have been rigged to rather
lofty and very square topgallant sails, and would have been capable of
sailing fairly well, though of rather shoal draft, drawing only about 8
feet 6 inches when ready for service. She was sold on the stocks at the
end of the war and her later history is not known.
Another and earlier design for a blockship, or floating battery, was
prepared by Christian Bergh for Captain Charles Stewart in 1806. This
was a sailing vessel for the defense of the port of New York, planned to
mount 40 guns (32-pdr.), on her two lower decks and 14 carronades
(42-pdr.), on her spar deck. She was to be 103 feet 6 inches between
perpendiculars, a 44-foot moulded beam, 10-foot depth of hold, and
drawing about 9 feet when ready for service. She was intended to be
ship-rigged, but was never built.[7] A few small sloop-rigged block
vessels also were built during Jefferson's administration. The
sloop-of-war _Saratoga_, built on Lake Champlain by the Browns, in 1813,
was practically a blockship. A plan for a proposed "Guard Ship," or
"Floating Battery," was made by James Marsh at Charleston, South
Carolina, in 1814. This was an unrigged battery, 200 feet extreme
length, 50-foot moulded beam, 9-foot depth of hold, to mount 32 guns
(42-pdr.), on a flush deck, with a covering deck above.[8]
[Illustration: Figure 4.--DESIGN FOR AN UNRIGGED FLOATING BATTERY
proposed by James Marsh, Charleston, South Carolina, March 14, 1814.]
Through the courtesy of the trustees of the National Maritime Museum,
Greenwich, England, the Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, Denmark, and the
Statens Sjoehistoriska Museum, Stockholm, Sweden, the author has been
able to illustrate in this article the designs of some of the early
floating batteries.
In the last quarter of the 18th century and later, the Danes had built
sail-propelled floating batteries or blockships, which were employed in
the defense of Copenhagen. The British built at least one sail-propelled
battery, the _Spanker_, in 1794. This was a scow of very angular form
with overhanging gun-deck, bomb-ketch-rigged, and about 120 feet overall
42-foot 4 inches moulded beam and 8-foot depth of hold. She is said to
have been a failure due to her unseaworthy proportions and form; the
overhanging gun deck and sides were objected to in particular. She is
called a "Stationary Battery" in her plans, which are in the Admiralty
Collection of Draughts, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.
Controversial Descriptions
The contemporary descriptions of the Fulton _Steam Battery_ do not
agree. This was in part due to differences between the dimensions given
out by Fulton during the negotiations with the Federal Government, and
after the ship's construction was authorized. From the context of
various statements concerning the projected vessel, such as that of the
naval officers, the changes in the intended dimensions of the ship can
be seen. For example, the officers state the model and plan shown them
would produce a battery carrying 24 guns (24- and 32-pdrs.), and a letter
from Fulton to Jones,[9] shows she was to be 138 feet on deck and
55-foot beam. The final reported dimensions, given by the Supervisory
Committee,[10] are 156 feet length, 56 feet beam, and 20 feet depth.
In addition there are a few foreign accounts which give dimensions and
descriptions. The most complete was probably that of Jean Baptiste
Marestier, a French naval constructor who visited the United States soon
after the end of the War of 1812 and published a report on American
steamboats in 1824.[11] The _Steam Battery_ is barely mentioned though a
drawing of one of her boilers is given. Marestier made another report on
the American Navy, however. Extensive searches have been made for this
in Paris over the last 14 years, but this paper has not been found in
any of the French archives. References to the original text indicate
that the naval report dealt very extensively with the _Steam Battery_.
Some of his comments on the battery appeared in _Proces-verbaux des
Seances de l'Academie des Sciences_.[12] Marestier considered the powers
of the battery to have been overrated due to fanciful accounts of some
laymen writers. He was aware of the shortcomings of the double hull in a
steam vessel at the then-possible speeds, but he apparently thought two
engines, one in each hull and each with its boilers would be better than
Fulton's arrangement of boilers in one hull and engine in the other. He
noted that the paddle wheel turned 16-18 rpm and that steam pressure
sustained a column of mercury 25 to 35 centimeters. The safety valve was
set at 50 centimeters. Fuel consumption was 3-5/8 cords of pine wood per
hour.
In view of the access Marestier is known to have had to American naval
constructors, shipbuilders, and engineers, it is highly probable that he
not only obtained the building plan of the ship but also some of the
earlier project plans from the builders and from Fulton's
superintendent, Stoudinger. It is, therefore, a great misfortune that
his lengthy report on the _Battery_ cannot be produced.
A French naval officer who investigated the ship, M. Montgery, also
wrote a description, published in "Notice sur la Vie et les Travaux de
Robert Fulton."[13]
[Illustration: Figure 5.--FLOATING BATTERY _Spanker_ built, in England
by William Barnard, at Deptford on the Thames, and launched June 14,
1794. Rigged as a bomb ketch, its length is 111 feet 7 inches in the
keel, extreme beam 42 feet 4 inches, depth of hold 8 feet. Upper deck
plan also shown.]
It should be noted in regard to what Montgery wrote about the
_Battery_, that in 1821 it had been considered desirable to disarm the
ship. The engineer in charge, William Purcell, had reported that as
there were not proper scuppers, dirt and water had entered the hull and
had collected under the engine and boilers, causing damage to the hull,
and also that with guns removed, the _Battery_ would float too high for
the paddle wheel to propel the vessel; so it had been decided to remove
all machinery as well as the armament.
Montgery's description, published in 1822, was taken from his report to
the Minister of Marine and Colonies. It noted the battery was made of
two hulls separated by a channel, or "race," 15-1/2 feet wide, running
the full length of the vessel. The two hulls were joined by a deck just
above the waterline, as well as by an upper deck, and also connected at
their keels by means of 12 oak beams each 1 foot square. The vessel was
152 feet long, 57 feet beam, and 20 feet deep. Sides were 4 feet 10
inches thick, and the ends of the hull were rounded and alike. There
were two rudders at each end, one on each hull, alongside the race. The
eight paddle blades, each 14-1/2 feet by 3 feet, turned in either
direction by stopping the engine piston at half-stroke and reversing the
flow of steam. Rigged with two lateen sails and two jibs, the ship
sailed either end first. The engine of 120 hp was in one hull and two
boilers were in the other. Other sources, Marestier, and Colden in
_Proces-verbaux des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences_,[14] gave
additional information (some of it incorrect): the engine was inclined,
with a 4-foot-diameter cylinder, 5-foot stroke, direct-connected to the
paddle wheel, which was turned at 18 rpm. The boilers were 8 x 22 feet
with the fireboxes in inside cylinders, each about 5 feet in diameter,
and extending about half the length of the boiler from the fire doors.
Two fire tubes, each about 3 feet in diameter, returned the gases from
the inside end of the fireboxes to the stacks at the firing end. Except
at the fire-door end, the firebox was completely surrounded by water.
The boiler pressure of about 6 psi was not maintained, varying somewhat
with each stroke of the engine.
Water level in the boilers was indicated by try cocks. The safety valve
was controlled by a counterbalanced lever. A jet of salt water was
injected into the exhaust trunk to form a vacuum by condensation. An air
pump transferred condensate and sea water into a tank from which it
passed overboard. Only about a tenth of this water was returned to the
boilers.
Montgery stated also that only the lower or gun deck was to be armed. No
bulwarks were on the spar deck, only iron stanchions to which were
fastened a breastwork of wet cotton bales when the _Steam Battery_ was
in action.
The _Battery_ was designed to carry 30 guns (32-pdr.), with 3 guns in
each end and 12 on each side, but no guns in the wake of paddle wheel
and machinery. Hatches to give air to the stokehold were located
amidships. The _Battery_ was to have been supplemented at the ends of
each hull by a Columbiad "submarine gun" (100-pdr.), Fulton's invention,
but these were not fitted. Provision was to be made in the fireboxes for
heating shot, and a force pump with a cylinder 33 inches in diameter was
employed to throw a stream of cold water, about 60-80 gallons per
minute, for a distance of about two hundred feet. This could be done
only when the paddle wheel was not in operation. The paddle wheel was
housed, the top fitted with stairs to the spar deck. The gun deck, over
the race, was used in part for staterooms, of which the bulkheads were
permanent. Hammocks for the complement of 500 men were to be slung on
the rest of the gun deck. The ship drew 10 feet 4 inches, with the port
sills about 5-1/2 feet above the loadline. Burning wood, the vessel
could carry about 4 days' supply of fuel; burning coal, she carried 12
days' supply.
Montgery said that the vessel would be vulnerable to bombshells and hot
shot, and that furthermore she could be boarded. The displacement of the
ship, at service draft, was 1,450 tons, a figure Montgery obtained from
a copy of the original plan given him by Noah Brown.
[Illustration: Figure 6.--FRENCH SKETCH, in Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, of
inboard profile and arrangement of Fulton's _Steam Battery_, showing
details of the Fulton engine, probably taken from one of his preliminary
designs.]
In 1935, Lieutenant Ralph R. Gurley, USN, attempted a reconstruction in
sketches of the vessel published in his article "The U.S.S. _Fulton_ the
First" in the _U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings_.[15] This
reconstruction was based on the Patent Office drawing prepared for
Fulton, and published by Stuart and Bennett, and the foregoing French
sources. The Patent Office drawing showed the engine was an inclined
cylinder and Lt. Gurley shows this in his sketch; in his text (p. 323)
he says, "The engine was an inclined, single-cylinder affair with a
4-foot base and a 5-foot stroke." Gurley's attempt to reconstruct the
_Steam Battery_ is the only one known to the author.
Copenhagen Plans
In 1960, Kjeld Rasmussen, naval architect of the Danish Greenland
Company, was requested by the author to inspect in the Danish Royal
Archives at Copenhagen a folio of American ship plans, the index of
which had listed some Civil War river monitors. Mr. Rasmussen found the
monitor plans had been withdrawn but discovered that three plans of
Fulton's _Steam Battery_ existed, as well as plans of the first
_Princeton_, a screw sloop-of-war.
Copies of the _Steam Battery's_ plans were obtained at Copenhagen in
September 1960 through the courtesy of the archivist, and were found to
consist of the lines, copied in 1817, an inboard profile and
arrangement, and a sail and rigging plan. From these the reconstruction
for a scale model was drawn and is presented here with reproductions of
the original drawings upon which the reconstruction is based.
It is apparent that Montgery's description is generally accurate. The
vessel is a catamaran, made of two hulls, double-ended and exactly
alike. The outboard sides are "moulded," with round bilges, the inboard
sides are straight and flat, as though a hull had been split along the
middle line and then planked up flat where split. The hulls are
separated by the race, in which the paddle wheel is placed at
mid-length. The topsides are made elliptical at the ends, and the
midsection shows a marked tumble-home over the thick topside planking
but less on the moulded lines.
[Illustration: Figure 6.]
The lines plan agreed rather closely to Montgery's description of the
hull. After careful fairing it was found the lines drawing would produce
a vessel 153 feet 2 inches overall outside the stems, or about 151 feet
over the planked rabbets, with a moulded beam of 56 feet and extreme
beam of 58 feet. The moulded depth was 22 feet 9 inches and the width of
the race was 14 feet 10 inches, plank to plank. The room and space of
framing shown was 2 feet. The designed draft appears to be 13 feet and
this would bring the port sills 5 feet 6 inches above the loadline and
the underside of the gun-deck beams about 2 feet 9 inches above the
loadline.
The lines plan is a Danish copy, probably of the building plan by Noah
Brown, and may be based on the plan Montgery obtained from Brown. The
spar deck has the iron stanchions (Gurley translated these as
"chandeliers") which are set inboard 4 feet from the plank-sheer. This
gives room for cotton bales, outboard the stanchions, to form a
barricade. As will be seen by comparing the original Danish drawing with
the model drawing, the construction indicates that the iron stanchions
should be carried around the ends of the hull in the same manner as
along the sides, since the lower ends of the iron stanchions pass
through the spar deck and are secured to the inside of the inner ceiling
of the gun deck. The rudders are as shown in the Danish drawing, and it
is supposed that they were operated ferryboat fashion, one at each end
of the vessel. Hence, each pair of rudders was toggled together by a
cross-yoke. This was probably operated by a tiller (possibly the
cross-yokes and tillers were of iron) pivoted under the beams of the gun
deck close to the ends of the ship. Tiller ropes led from a tackle under
the gun-deck through trunks to the spar deck, where the wheels were
placed. This allowed proper sweep to the tillers and operation of each
pair of rudders. The paddle wheel was apparently of iron, with wooden
blades, and agrees with Montgery's description. In the plan for the
model it is shown raised 18 inches above the original design position,
to agree with trial requirements.
[Illustration: Figure 7.--ORIGINAL LINES OF ROBERT FULTON'S _Steam
Battery_, a Danish copy dated September 12, 1817; found in Rigsarkivet,
Copenhagen.]
It should be observed that the close CL-to-CL frame spacing created a
hull having frames touching one another, at least to above the turn of
the bilge, so the vessel was almost solid timber, before being planked
and ceiled, from keel to about the loadline. The sides are not only
heavily planked but, after the frames were ceiled with extraordinarily
heavy, square timbering, a supplementary solid, vertical framing was
introduced inboard and another ceiling added. The sides scale about 5
feet from outside the plank to the inboard face of the inner ceiling at
the level of the gunports.
The hulls were tied together athwartship by the deck beams of the gun
deck and spar deck, except in the wake of the paddle wheel. Knees were
placed along the sides of the race at alternate gun-deck beams. In
addition, the 12 1-foot-square timbers, crossing the race at the rabbets
of the hulls, (mentioned by Montgery) are shown. These must have created
extraordinary resistance, even at the low speed of this steamer. The
deck details shown are the results of reconstruction of the inboard
works.
History of Double-Hull Craft
The use of catamaran hulls, or "double-hulls," has been periodically
popular with ship designers since the time of Charles II of England. The
earliest of such vessels known in the present day were four sloops or
shallops designed 1673-1687 by Sir William Petty, who was an inventor in
the field of naval architecture and received some attention from Charles
II and from the Royal Society.
The first Petty experiment, the _Simon & Jude_, later called _Invention
I_, was launched October 28, 1662. She was designed with two hulls
cylindrical in cross section, each 2 feet in diameter, and 20 feet long.
A platform connected the hulls, giving the boat a beam of a little over
9 feet. She had a 20-foot mast stepped on one of the crossbeams
connecting the hulls, with a single gaff sail. In sailing trials she
beat three fast boats: the King's barge, a large pleasure boat, and a
man-of-war's boat. This "double-bottom," also called a "sluiceboat" or
"cylinder," was later lengthened at the stern to make her 30 feet
overall.
[Illustration: Figure 7.]
The King did not support Petty, to the latter's great disappointment,
and Petty next built a larger double-bottom, _Invention II_. This
catamaran was lapstrake construction. Not much is known of this boat
except that she beat the regular Irish packet boat, running between
Holyhead and Dublin, in a race each way, winning a L20 wager. She was
launched in July 1663; what became of her was not recorded.
A third and still larger boat, the _Experiment_, launched December 22,
1664, appears to have been a large sloop. This vessel sailed by way of
the Thames in April 1665 and went to Oporto, Portugal. She left Portugal
October 20, 1665, for home, but apparently went down with all hands in a
severe storm.
[Illustration: Figure 8.--DANISH COPY OF ORIGINAL SAIL PLAN of Robert
Fulton's _Steam Battery_, dated September 12, 1817, in Rigsarkivet,
Copenhagen.]
[Illustration: Figure 9.--LINES OF FULTON'S _Steam Battery_, as
reconstructed for a model in the Museum of History and Technology.]
[Illustration: Figure 10.--A RECONSTRUCTION OF INBOARD WORKS of the
_Steam Battery_, for construction of the model in the Museum of History
and Technology.]
For 18 years Petty did no more with the type, but finally, in July
1684, he laid down a still larger sloop with two decks and a mast
standing 55 feet above her upper deck. She was named _St. Michael the
Archangel_ and is probably the design in Pepys' _Book of Miscellaneous
Illustrations_ in Magdalene College, Cambridge, England. This vessel
proved unmanageable and was a complete failure.
[Illustration: Figure 11.--MODEL LINES REDRAWN to outside of plank to
show hydrodynamic form of the _Steam Battery_.]
Though the double canoes of the Pacific Islands were probably known to
some in Europe in 1662, there is no evidence that Petty based his
designs on such craft. He appears to have produced his designs
spontaneously from independent observations and resulting theories.
Before Petty concluded his experiments, a number of double-hull craft
had been produced by others; however, some "double" craft, such as
"double shallops" may have been "double-enders," as shown by a
"double-moses boat" of the 18th century and later.[16]
The use of two canoes, joined by a platform or by poles was common in
colonial times; in Maryland and Virginia, dugouts so joined were used to
transport tobacco down the tidal creeks to vessels' loading. Such craft
were also used as ferries. M. V. Brewington's _Chesapeake Bay Log
Canoes_[17] and Paul Wilstack's _Potomac Landings_[18] illustrate canoes
used in this manner. A catamaran galley, two round-bottom hulls, flat on
the inboard side (a hull split along the centerline and the inboard
faces planked up), 113 feet long and each hull a 7-foot moulded beam,
6-foot 6 inches moulded depth, and placed 13 feet apart, was proposed by
Sir Sidney Smith, R.N., in the 1790's, and built by the British
Admiralty. Named _Taurus_, she is shown by the Admiralty draught to have
been a double-ender, with cabins amidships on the platform, an iron
rudder at each end (between the hulls) steered with tillers (to unship),
and with a ramp at one end. The plans are undated, signed by Captain Sir
Sidney Smith, and a field-carriage gun is shown at the ramp end of the
boat. This, and the heavy rocker in the keels, suggests the _Taurus_ was
intended for a landing boat. No sailing rig is indicated, but tholes for
12 oars or sweeps on each side are shown. The oarsmen apparently sat on
deck, or on low seats, with stretchers in hatches between each pair of
tholes (Admiralty Collection of Draughts, The National Maritime Museum,
Greenwich, England).
[Illustration: Figure 12.--GENERAL PLAN of the _Taurus_, a catamaran
galley gunboat proposed by Sir Sidney Smith, R.N., to the British
Admiralty in the early years of the French Revolution. From the
Admiralty Collection of Draughts, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.]
Another experimenter with the double-hull type of vessel was a wealthy
Scot named Patrick Miller who was particularly interested in manual
propulsion of vessels, employing geared capstans to operate paddle
wheels. In a letter dated June 9, 1790, Miller offered Gustav III of
Sweden a design for a double-hulled 144-gun ship-of-the-line (rating as
a 130-gun ship) propelled by manually operated capstans connected to a
paddle wheel between the hulls. She was rigged to sail, with five masts
and was to be 246 feet long, 63 feet beam, and 17 feet draft; the hulls
were 16 feet apart.
This project was submitted by the King to Fredrik Henrik af Chapman, the
great Swedish naval architect, who made an adverse report. Chapman
pointed out in great detail that the weight of the armament, the
necessary hull structure, the stores, crew, ammunition, spars, sails,
rigging and gear, would greatly exceed Miller's designed displacement.
He also pointed out the prime fault of catamarans under sail--slow
turning in stays. He suggested that the speed under sail would be
disappointing. He doubted that a double-hull ship of such size could be
built strong enough to stand a heavy sea. He remarked that English
records showed that a small vessel of the catamaran type had been built
between 1680 and 1700 which had sailed well (this may have been one of
Petty's boats), and that "36 years ago" he had seen 8 miles from London,
a similar boat that had been newly built by Lord Baltimore and was about
50 feet long; this was a failure and was discarded after one trial.
Therefore, said Chapman, the Miller project was not new but rather an
old idea. Chapman's final remark is perhaps the best illustration of his
opinion of the catamaran, "Despite all this, two-hull vessels are
completely sound when the theory can be properly applied; that is in
vessels of very light weight, and of small size, with crews of one or
two men."
A "model" of such a double-hull ship--the _Experiment_, built at Leith,
Scotland, in 1786 by J. Laurie--was sent to Sweden by Miller. She was
105 feet long, 31 feet beam, and cost L3000. This vessel arrived in the
summer of 1790 and King Gustav in a letter dated July 26 ordered Col.
Michael Anckerswaerd to welcome the vessel at Stockholm. The King
presented Miller with a gold snuffbox and a painting was made of the
vessel. The _Experiment_ had five paddle wheels in tandem between her
hulls, operated by geared capstans on deck. These gave her a speed of 5
knots but caused the crew to suffer from exhaustion in a short time. The
vessel was badly strained in a storm and was finally abandoned at St.
Petersburg, Russia.[19]
[Illustration: Figure 12.]