Savannah dredging operations brought up numerous Civil War and Revolutionary War cannons and artifacts. How did the projects and weapons compare?

CSS Georgia Dahlgren pulled up from river in 2015; one of the Revolutionary War cannons in 2021 and this week's unveiling of conserved artillery pieces at the Savannah History Museum (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers photos)

A stunning collection of Revolutionary War cannon recovered off Old Fort Jackson in Savannah, Ga., is now on public display, the culmination of an extensive archaeological and conservation effort.

A contractor dredging the Savannah River in 2021 came across the first of the 19 artillery pieces, which some thought might belong to CSS Georgia, a Confederate ironclad that was scuttled nearby by its crew in December 1864. But it soon became apparent they dated to the American Revolution and the British siege of the city in 1779. They were on ships scuttled by the British to prevent French support of the colonists.

The surprise discovery of the Revolutionary War weapons came following the 2015-2017 recovery of items associated with the Civil War ironclad.

That U.S. Army Corps of Engineers harbor deepening project, which involved contractors and U.S. Navy divers, recovered more than 30,000 CSS Georgia artifacts, including 241 pieces of ordnance, five cannons and two large casemate sections. The latter were documented and left in the water.

A section of the CSS Georgia's casemate in 2017 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

The Corps of Engineers worked with Texas A&M University to conserve the CSS Georgia material and then 17 of the cannons associated with the Revolutionary War. The Savannah History Museum this week opened “Loyalists and Liberty: Savannah in the American Revolution.”

Chris Dostal, director of the conservation lab at Texas A&M, told the Civil War Picket:

“From a conservation standpoint, both projects involved large, concreted iron artillery from a marine or riverine environment, but the Savannah River cannon presented a particularly unusual opportunity because so many guns were recovered together, several with associated bore contents preserved.”

Some CSS Georgia artifacts are on display at the National Civil War Naval Museum in Columbus, Ga. (At left, one of its propellers, Picket photo).

That venue "is the only institution with CSS Georgia artifacts on loan from our office," said Kate Morrand, a conservator with the Naval History and Heritage Command. "The remainder of the CSS Georgia collection includes over 5,100 artifacts and is curated by the NHHC Underwater Archaeology Branch, based at the Washington Navy Yard."

The command was involved in the CSS Georgia project but the Revolutionary War cannons were not under its purview.

The Picket recently asked Corps officials to provide some context to how both archaeological projects dovetailed or differed.

The following responses came from Francis “Franky” Stankiewicz with Chronical Heritage, Andrea Farmer, archaeologist with the Savannah district of the Army Corps, and Cheri Pritchard, media relations chief with that office. The responses have been edited for brevity and context.

Q1: Are you any closer to knowing precisely which British ships these Revolutionary War cannon belonged to? I know the HMS Rose was ruled out.

A: We have learned a great deal since the cannon were conserved, but I would not say we can assign individual guns to specific vessels with certainty. The strongest current interpretation is that the assemblage most likely originated from the armed ship Savannah, formerly the American privateer General Arnold, and the British transport Venus, both of which were associated with the 1779 Siege of Savannah. Current research suggests that domestic colonial production is the most likely origin for the guns attributed to the General Arnold/Savannah. However, manufacture in Britain, France (particularly Bordeaux), or Spain (particularly Bilbao) cannot be ruled out. Within the realm of domestic production, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania presently appear to be the most probable manufacturing centers.

Andrea Farmer with two reenactors at the Savannah History Museum (USACE photos)

Q: There was early speculation these 19 cannons might date to the Revolutionary War era but might have been placed on the CSS Georgia or fortifications. What led you to determine they dated to the Revolution?

A: The Revolutionary War interpretation rests on several lines of evidence. Typologically, the guns are mid-to-late 18th-century 6-pounders, including examples exhibiting Armstrong-pattern characteristics as well as related short-gun variants. Historically, British and French accounts document the burning and scuttling of armed vessels in this section of the Savannah River during the 1779 Siege of Savannah, consistent with the location of the recovery area. Archaeologically, many of the cannon were recovered in a loaded condition, containing tampions, wadding, shot, powder cartridges, fuse remains, and powder residue, indicating that they were likely prepared for immediate use rather than discarded at a later date. Taken together, the age, location, and loaded condition of the guns strongly support their association with the Revolutionary War-era scuttling events in the Savannah River.

Q: From an archaeological and conservation viewpoint, how different are these cannons vs. those found at CSS Georgia site?

A: From a conservation standpoint, these cannons were unusually rich in sealed contexts. Most were heavily concreted and contaminated cast iron, but many still held preserved bore contents. That meant conservation was also excavation: tampions, hemp junk wads, shot, cartridges, and residues had to be removed and documented in sequence. CSS Georgia material, by contrast, is Civil War ironclad wreckage and ordnance context: later, more industrial, and tied to an armored floating battery. The Savannah cannon assemblage is earlier, Revolutionary War-era muzzle-loading artillery, and its research value comes heavily from the combination of gun form, loading evidence (i.e., material within), and scuttling context. (See link for more photos)

Q. I know the investigation into CSS Georgia concluded a few years back. Have you learned anything more about the site or vessel since then?

A: The CSS Georgia investigation itself concluded earlier, and the current investigations do not indicate a major new interpretation of the vessel since that work. What they do add is a broader landscape context: the cannon cluster site lies near, but is not part of, the CSS Georgia site, and prior mapping work around CSS Georgia actually helped identify the Revolutionary War cannon concentration.

Q: Do you have a schematic/map or illustration showing their precise location in the Savannah River? And do you have anything similar showing the CSS Georgia cannon location -- or both put together?

A: To help preserve and protect these cultural resources long-term, we are not publicly disclosing their precise locations. While the locations are known to a limited number of researchers and resource managers, there is broad agreement that this information should remain restricted for now. Limiting access helps protect the sites from disturbance while supporting future research and analysis that may provide additional insights. Researchers continue to use a variety of mapping products, including sonar and multi-beam imagery of the Cannon Cluster Site near Fort Jackson. Specific details about the exact locations of these resources and their relationship to one another are also being withheld to support ongoing stewardship and future study. In addition, the Savannah Harbor shipping channel is heavily trafficked by large commercial vessels. Restricting site locations helps discourage unauthorized diving activity and reduces potential safety risks. (At left, anchor from one of the 18th century vessels, USACE)

Q: Finally, what is your long-term perspective on both CSS Georgia and these 19 cannons -- What do they tell us about their chapters in American history?

A: Although separated by nearly a century, CSS Georgia and the Revolutionary War cannon cluster represent two distinct chapters in Savannah's long history as a strategically important river port. CSS Georgia represents the Civil War effort to hold the river with improvised Confederate naval technology, including an ironclad that functioned more as a floating battery than an effective maneuvering warship. The cannon cluster reaches back to the Revolution when British forces deliberately used vessels and their armament to obstruct the river and help stop the French fleet during the Siege of Savannah. Together, they show that control of the Savannah River was repeatedly central to military strategy, commerce and the fate of the city.

------

Postscript: Gordon Watts' perspective on the RevWar cannons

Archaeologist Gordon Watts, who dived and studied the CSS Georgia wreck site for decades, was present for the recovery of artifacts and helped write a final report on the project. I asked him for his perspective on the Revolutionary War cannons.

Gordon Watts studies CSS Georgia casemate section in 2017 (Civil War Picket photos)

Q. Were you surprised that British cannons were found near Old Fort Jackson?
A.  No surprise. If familiar with the Revolutionary War in Savannah, Fort Jackson did not even exist at that time. Construction on that fortification did not begin until 1808.

Q. Any reaction to their discovery? Also, what do you think of the combination of Civil War and RevWar artillery in the same area?
A. Initial reaction was with the lack of associated Revolutionary War vessel remains with the ordnance.  Savannah was the site of considerable Revolutionary War military and naval activity. Likewise, Savannah was the site of considerable military and naval activity during the War Between the Confederate States and the United States. The presence of sunken vessel remains and artifacts in the Savannah River in the proximity of the city is not unusual.

Q. Have you learned anything more about the site or vessel since then?
A: Conservation and analysis of the ordnance, casemate structure and cultural material from the CSS Georgia has shed considerable light on one of the earliest Confederate Ironclads. The CSS Georgia underwater archaeological investigations was, and remains, one of the most comprehensive undertaken to date and has resulted in extensive historical research and publication.

The archaeological investigation has produced an extensive collection of ordnance, vessel structure and cultural material that supports informative displays.

Q. Anything else?
A.  Very pleased to see the levels of interest in and support for documentation and exhibition of material associated with both of the Savannah River underwater archaeological sites. Hopefully, that level of interest will inspire similar investigation of other underwater archaeological sites in the Savannah and back rivers and other sites in waterways farther away but closely associated with Savannah and Georgia's history.

Legacy of the USS Montauk: Student at the Savannah College of Art and Design believes she has the blueprints for success to produce 3D model of ironclad for park

Blueprints are matched with 3D model; illustration of Montauk shelling Nashville

Like the Montauk itself, a 3D model of the noted Civil War ironclad must be watertight, with no problematic gaps or holes.

That’s one of many goals for Grace Stelmaszyk, a senior at Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD), who is working to produce and print a model of the Montauk for Fort McAllister State Park in Richmond Hill, Ga. The Montauk bombarded the Confederate fort and sank the raider Nashville (Rattlesnake) in February 1863.

The college previously produced interpretive panels about the Montauk and other Union ironclads for the park. Greg Johnson, interactive design and game development professor, has worked with students to make a 30-inch version of the Montauk, so it can be placed next to a model of the Nashville in the park’s museum.

Stelmaszyk (right) has picked up the project from another student, and she hopes to get it across the finish line in the next couple months. Johnson said she is doing “an amazing job” on the model, making sure it conforms with blueprints of the Montauk.

Key to the effort is a discovery made by park staffers several years ago: A matted long tube contained a precious copy of the USS Montauk’s blueprints, manufactured in dozens of sheets.

Johnson, after learning about the blueprints, used a custom-built rig to slide dozens sheets under a camera to obtain high resolution.

“Because I had to photograph the blueprints, since they were way too big to scan, there is a certain amount of distortion. Grace had to fix the distortion in the blueprints and then adjust the model to match,” Johnson said in an email.

Stelmaszyk, who is graduating with an interactive design and game development degree in May, hopes to have the model ready for printing by early summer.

“My current list of items to complete for a print-ready model are adding adequate thickness to all components of the model, combining all components so the model is ‘watertight,’ deciding how many pieces need to be printed separately and assembled (small things like the thin poles need to be separate since the printer may not print them right if they're part of a larger piece), and then sizing the model to the correct in-person length.”

Persistent Union ironclad finally got its prey

Working 3D Montauk model being produced for printing (SCAD photo)

The Montauk was one of 10 Passaic ironclads built relatively early in the Civil War.

Andy Hall, A Civil War naval expert and author, told the Picket the Passaic monitors were the first large-class of monitors and many of them served together, such as the campaign against the earthen Fort McAllister in 1863 and 1864.

The Union navy, as it continued its chokehold on Southern ports and readied for offensive operations, sent the Montauk and sisters Passaic, Patapsco and Nahant, supported by gunboats Seneca, Dawn and Wissahickon to bombard and capture Fort McAllister in January 1863.

The skipper of the Montauk was John Worden (left), famous for being the USS Monitor’s captain when it clashed with the CSS Virginia in 1862.

Capable Confederate gunners at Fort McAllister hit the ironclad 13 times in its first action, but caused little damage. A second attack on Feb. 1, 1863, found the vessel, according to histories, pounded by 48 shells. The Montauk's sister ships also took part in the action.

Its big day came on February 28. The sidewheeler Nashville, which was bottled up and hiding under the guns of Fort McAllister for protection, tried to get away from the Federal ironclads via Seven-Mile Bend on the Ogeechee River, but apparently ran aground.

The 215-foot blockade runner commanded by Lt. Thomas Harrison Baker became a sitting duck because of its lack of maneuverability and deep draft in a tight area, and the Montauk pounced.

“All the monitors were designed for littoral or riverine operations, and so drew as little water as possible,” says Hall. “Nashville was built as an ocean-going steamship, so had a fuller, deeper hull.” That proved to be a disadvantage at McAllister.

Montauk’s XV- and 11-inch Dahlgrens were able to destroy the former commerce raider.

Worden was pleased with his destruction of ‘this troublesome pest’” wrote John V. Quarstein, director emeritus of the USS Monitor Center in a blog. “However, Montauk suffered a huge jolt when it struck a Confederate torpedo en route down the Ogeechee River. Worden’s quick thinking saved his ironclad.” (Quarstein wrote a recent biography of Worden.).

The Union naval attacks on Fort McAllister itself were less successful. The low-profile earthen fort could withstand the shelling and repairs could be readily made. It eventually fell to land forces in December 1864.

The Montauk was scrapped in the early 1900s; the park grounds and museum have a large number of CSS Nashville artifacts.

USS Montauk (left) and USS Lehigh in Philadelphia in 1902 (Wikipedia)

While the monitors were mass-produced, they did undergo changes during the service, and SCAD students wanted to be sure the appearance of the Montauk matched the time it prowled off Fort McAllister.

SCAD is working from a Montauk paint scheme described in the work “Modeling Civil War Ironclad Ships” by Steven Lund and William Hathaway. 

The deck is lead gray, the turret and pilot house black with a narrow white ring, and the smokestack black with the upper one third in dark green.

Lots of tasks and challenges during project

SCAD and the park last year took measurements of the Nashville model and studied vital stats of both vessels, so the Montauk will be to scale. (Site manager Jason Carter below, Picket photo)

“This makes the USS Montauk model 30 11/16th inches or 780mm in length,” said Johnson. The ironclad, he says was slightly asymmetrical.

I asked the professor about the challenges of such a project.

“To build a complex 3D model like the USS Montauk and then 3D print it, you first need a solid understanding of 3D modeling fundamentals, know how to create clean geometry and also accurately match real-world measurements,” he responded.

“Software like Autodesk's Maya or 3dsMax is generally used -- so a very thorough understanding of that software is required. You must build the model specifically for printing by ensuring it is fully closed (watertight, with no holes in the geometry), has appropriate wall thickness, and accounts for overhangs or tolerances so that parts can be fit together after printing. Once the ship is modeled, it will need to be exported to a file readable by the 3D printer and then loaded into a slicer, where things such as layer height, infill, supports, and other print settings will need to be determined.”

After that is completed, the model must be assembled and painted.

Stelmaszyk said she is using Maya and ZBrush software.

The student said she joined the effort to help create something for the park and increase her knowledge on different types of projects that aren't only game-industry focused. “While maybe my knowledge on this ship isn't as vast as some, I enjoy the research that I get to do for the project to create for the public's enjoyment,” she wrote in an email.

“I'd say the most gratifying part of the experience is always working towards that end goal of printing and being able to hold it in my hands and see it in the world. All the little steps that are completed along the way also bring me a lot of satisfaction as I keep going forward. The most challenging part of this project would be predicting the final print. For example, predicting the thickness and what that will look like when printed or planning how you want to assemble the smaller, fragile pieces back onto the main body. But I've always loved solving puzzles.”

SCAD will be working from this paint scheme (Courtesy Steven Lund)

The ironclad USS Montauk sank the Rattlesnake at Fort McAllister. After delays, a 3D model of the Federal monitor is being produced for display at Georgia park

Early model of Montauk; section of blueprints (SCAD) and Professor Johnson describing its operations (Picket photo)

Jason Carter, site manager at Fort McAllister State Park in Richmond Hill, Ga., believes a model of the ironclad USS Montauk -- which prowled the waters and bombarded Confederate earthworks -- will be a cool educational tool at its visitor center.

Carter would like to see it positioned next to an old model of the CSS Nashville (Rattlesnake), a commerce raider the Montauk blew out of the water in February 1863.

Greg Johnson says completing and printing a precise 3D model of the Montauk -- one of 10 Passaic-class monitors -- will be a boon for graduate student Wilson Han, who is in his gaming class at the nearby Savannah College of Art and Design.

“A legacy piece,” Johnson says of the effort.

And Han (left), a native of China, is likewise excited by the project, which involves modern technology and a bit of old-fashioned model-making.

“I am always interested in history,” he says.

Now, five years after Johnson visited the park and met former interpretive ranger Mike Ellis, the dream of having a Montauk model is finally close to reality. Han has been working on the model design for the past couple months, using Autodesk Maya software. Han said April 1 the modeling is going well but slowly because of a busy college quarter.

The original goal of the project was to create compelling interpretive panels, a 3D ship model and film that explained the role of USS Montauk and other innovative Federal monitors in the siege of Confederate outposts on the Atlantic Ocean, specifically Fort McAllister.

The plan turned out to be too ambitious, given SCAD graduations and the complexity of work, which ran up against limited class time. Still, a half dozen wall panels and a schematic of the Montauk were created by SCAD students and installed in late 2022.

Work on a model stalled after that, but when I reached back out in December to Johnson, interactive design and game development professor at SCAD, he asked for contact information for park leadership (Ellis had left by then) and I connected him with Carter.

Jason Carter measures CSS Nashville exhibit to aid in model for Montauk (Picket photo)

Carter met with Johnson and Han at the park on Feb. 1 to discuss the 3D model, and I tagged along. The professor explained a previous student had made a 3D model for in-game simulation (for the film) but that aspect never came to fruition. Hence, the current effort to convert that to a printable 3D model.

Johnson stressed the work would be tedious, that Han would have to check all specifications and ensure the model was ready for printing.

“I have to be certain to do the job right,” Han told the Picket.

Accuracy is paramount, says Johnson, who located the likely paint scheme for the ironclad

“It will be down to the bolt,” he says of the reproduction.

The Nashville was trapped near this bend in the Ogeechee River (Picket photo)

Key to the whole effort – for the wall display and the model – is something Ellis found by chance several years ago.

Finding blueprints was a stroke of fortune

Ellis, now a guide and trainer for Old Towne Trolley Tours in Savannah, recalls being in a storage area at Fort McAllister in 2017. There were piles of documents and papers everywhere.

“As rangers come and go, things get lost to time,” he says.

Ellis went through some of them and found a matted long tube. Inside: A precious copy of the USS Montauk’s blueprints, manufactured in dozens of sheets.

One of numerous photos of blueprints shows turret (Courtesy Greg Johnson)

“I knew immediately what is was,” says Carter. Now the staff could upgrade the monitor exhibit, putting a facsimile of the blueprints on one wall.

Everything clicked during Johnson’s visit to the site. “Me and Greg spent a better part of the day taking photos of (the blueprints) in detail.”

They used a custom-built rig to slide dozens of sheets under a camera to obtain high resolution.

“These images were then processed, enhanced and stitched together using photo editing tools to make the panels,” Johnson says. The image could then be used for the wall, model or the film.

Showdown on the Ogeechee was one-sided

USS Montauk receives fire from Fort McAllister as it hammers the Nashville

Andy Hall, A Civil War naval expert and author, told the Picket the Passaic monitors were the first large-class of monitors and many of them served together, such as the campaign against the earthen Fort McAllister in 1863 and 1864.

The Union navy, as it continued its chokehold on Southern ports and readied for offensive operations, sent the Montauk and sisters Passaic, Patapsco and Nahant, supported by gunboats Seneca, Dawn and Wissahickon to bombard and capture Fort McAllister in January 1863.

The skipper of the Montauk was John Worden (left), famous for being the USS Monitor’s captain when it clashed with the CSS Virginia in 1862.

Capable Confederate gunners at Fort McAllister hit the ironclad 13 times in its first action, but caused little damage. A second attack on Feb. 1, 1863, found the vessel, according to histories, pounded by 48 shells. The Montauk's sister ships also took part in the action.

Its big day came on February 28. The sidewheeler Nashville, which was bottled up and hiding under the guns of Fort McAllister for protection, tried to get away from the Federal ironclads via Seven-Mile Bend on the Ogeechee River, but apparently ran aground.

The 215-foot blockade runner commanded by Lt. Thomas Harrison Baker became a sitting duck because of its lack of maneuverability and deep draft in a tight area, and the Montauk pounced.

“All the monitors were designed for littoral or riverine operations, and so drew as little water as possible,” says Hall. “Nashville was built as an ocean-going steamship, so had a fuller, deeper hull.” That proved to be a disadvantage at McAllister.

Montauk’s XV- and 11-inch Dahlgrens were able to destroy the former commerce raider.

Worden was pleased with his destruction of ‘this troublesome pest’” wrote John V. Quarstein, director emeritus of the USS Monitor Center in a blog.

“However, Montauk suffered a huge jolt when it struck a Confederate torpedo en route down the Ogeechee River. Worden’s quick thinking saved his ironclad.” (Quarstein’s new biography of Worden will be published April 15).

The Union naval attacks on Fort McAllister itself were less successful. The low-profile earthen fort could withstand the shelling and repairs could be readily made.

While the Montauk was scrapped in the early 1900s, the park grounds and museum have a large number of CSS Nashville artifacts.

USS Montauk (left) and USS Lehigh in Philadelphia in 1902 (Wikipedia)

And in this corner, weighing in at . . .

On the afternoon of my visit, Carter, Johnson and Han -- who is majoring in game development and interactive design -- met in a conference room and a museum gallery that houses the wall panels, artifacts and the CSS Nashville model.

Carter used a tape measure to get the dimensions of the Nashville display case. That was to help ensure the Montauk 3D model would be built in the proper scale (1/78).

Wilson Han and Professor Johnson are working from this paint scheme (Courtesy Steven Lund)

“This makes the USS Montauk model 30 11/16th inches or 780mm in length,” Johnson wrote in a later email. The ironclad, he says was slightly asymmetrical

Carter provided these vital statistics for the two warships:

Montauk, 200 feet long, beam 46 feet, draft 10 feet

Nashville, 215 feet long, beam 34 feet, draft 20 feet

While the monitors were mass-produced, they did undergo changes during the service, and SCAD students wanted to be sure the appearance of the Montauk matched the time it prowled off Fort McAllister.

SCAD is working from a Montauk paint scheme described in the work “Modeling Civil War Ironclad Ships” by Steven Lund and William Hathaway. 

The deck is lead gray, the turret and pilot house black with a narrow white ring, and the smokestack black with the upper one third in dark green.

To distinguish them, all 10 Passaic ironclads had some color variations.

Sources for such information on paint schemes are difficult to find, says model maker and writer Devin J. Poore.

“Black is very popular, (while) gray and white were used in really hot areas.”

3D printing is not for the faint of heart

Converting an item intended for a game to a 3D printable object requires numerous revisions.

The former are designed with much higher resolution so they can be used in interactive entertainment. Former SCAD student Collin Drilling created the original image of the USS Montauk. It had about 10,000 “holes;” he worked from May and Zbrush software.

Han’s task was to bring down the resolution and fine tune the details. Johnson had worked on the turret, and his student used that as a guide.

A version of the Montauk model before Han's work to modify it for printing (Courtesy SCAD)

Preparing the model for 3D printing is one thing, but ending up with a worthy final product is another. Lots of things can go wrong in printing – and often do, the SCAD team says. Plastic can shrink during the process, the printer footing may be off and a misfeed can occur.

The printer is like a dot matrix and the artist must determine how many pieces he should make for the ironclad model and figure in joints for assembly. While Han wants to keep it to perhaps one to three pieces, some items require more, says Johnson.

Poore (photo below) told the Picket the quality of any model, handmade or 3D designed and printed, depends on the skill of the modeler.

“3D models come off the printer needing sanding, priming, assembly, etc. Depending on how much work you put into the process depends on the result. There are certain benefits that 3D printing can have over hand making, such as pretty much guaranteed right angles and symmetry, but then again you have to worry about how to actually print a piece so that it comes out cleanly, and so that it won't warp in the future,” he says.

This project is a mix of newer and old technology. While the printing will produce the frame of the ship, finer pieces such as chains and rigging will need to come for a model kit or the like.

And the painting is definitely old school; Johnson said he expects to assist with that.

Passaics were primo, but had limitations

For Fort McAllister, the Montauk model will help further its education of visitors on the fort and various Federal attempts to subdue it.

Lund said the innovation and quality of the Passaic class made for the best monitors.

“Although two of the 10 produced were lost, some of them soldiered on into the 20^th century. At least two were recommissioned to serve as harbor defense vessels in the Spanish-American War. One of them, the USS Camanche, guarded the San Francisco Bay during that conflict. She was sold for scrap in 1908 and her hull functioned as a coal barge as late as WW II.”

A model of the U.S.S. Carondelt being made for 3D printing (Courtesy Devin J. Poore)

Poore says the Passaic monitors were a stepping stone in warship development but were underutilized and not appropriate for most situations they encountered..

“For the work needed on the Atlantic coast, i.e. reducing forts, they weren't the best candidates. They were built to fight Confederate ironclads, and simply didn't see much action in that regard, due to the limited number of Confederate opponents.”

Poore is in the process of making his first full-blown printed ironclad, the city-class U.S.S. Carondelet. The vessel had notable service in the Western Theater.

Devin J. Poore's model of the USS Weehawken (Courtesy of the creator)

Fort Wimberly: A large remnant of battery outside Savannah survives. Its guns were trained on what is now the famous Moon River

1990s survey shows Confederate earthworks (Larry Babits, Armstrong State College)

In war, commanders depend on manpower and materiel. But for Federal forces during the Civil War there also were intangibles, such as the strategy of “always keep them guessing.” The Union’s taking of Fort Pulaski near Savannah in 1862 – for example -- led the Confederacy to pour precious resources into building and manning seaward defenses, just in case of an invasion.

Ultimately, most of those outposts ringing Savannah were never tested.

One such fortification was Fort (Battery) Wimberly on the Isle of Hope. While the taking of Pulaski essentially made the Savannah port useless, there were other reasons for the South to build defenses that would blunt further incursions inland.

“A lot of the pressure for coast defense comes from the slave owners and coastal residents because of concerns about the real and potential loss of African-American slaves,” says Jim Ogden, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park staff historian. “The loss of Port Royal, and then Pulaski, caused a lot of owners to move many of their slaves inland at least for a while, but there were still enough slaves in the region to grow the apparently extensive rice crop Sherman found in December 1864.”

The fort overlooks what is now called Moon River (GBA photo)

Ogden served as guide during the Georgia Battlefields Association’s mid-April tour of Savannah, which included a walk to Fort Wimberly and stops at other Confederate defenses.

The well-preserved earthen fortification is just off the orange trail at Wormsloe State Historic Site, which interprets colonial settlement in the 18^th century. The fort overlooks what is now called Moon River – yes, the one mentioned in the classic Johnny Mercer/Henry Mancini tune. During the Civil War, it was called the Back River.

Wimberly “represents, along with the nearby Rose Dhu earthworks, Fort Screven on Green Island and portions of the Fort Bartow works on Causton’s Bluff, the finest extant remaining examples of Confederate earthen fortifications,” wrote archaeologist Larry Babits in his 1992 survey for Armstrong State College (now part of Georgia Southern University.”

Made up of parapets, traverses and terrepleins, Fort Wimberly basically had two long, parallel lines of earthworks and featured several artillery pieces and perhaps a few dozen troops. It was built to protect an old causeway and internal communications.

A small portion of Fort Wimberly (Georgia Battlefields Assn.)

The first period of construction was in 1861-1862, possibly continuing into 1863. Enslaved persons and soldiers built walls up to 20 feet high. The second phase took part during the second half of 1864. The Confederacy’s upgrades failed to make a real difference – because the site was never attacked.

Rebel troops evacuated the area in December when Federal forces were on the verge of taking Savannah by land. Union troops occupied the works for a time afterward and dismantled a portion of the fort.

Charlie Crawford, president emeritus of the GBA, and Ogden argue the US Navy had little incentive to spend a lot of resources trying to reduce all the batteries in the years following the fall of Fort Pulaski. But, as Crawford points out, the defenses did serve somewhat as a deterrent.

Savannah was ringed by fortifications, click to enlarge (Georgia Battlefields Assn)

The North did expend a lot of effort and resources against Charleston. But pushing into a major concentration of coastal defenses was the exception.

“Even the North, with a lot more shipping capacity than the Confederates, didn't have/chose not to have -- versus expending resources on other efforts -- the shipping capacity to mount extensive over-the-shore (to use a modern term) operations,” Ogden wrote the Picket. 

Today, Fort Wimberly – like many of the other Savannah defenses – remains off the beaten path. It is cloaked by trees in the southwestern edge of Wormsloe, though noise from the nearby Diamond Causeway does intrude upon a visit to the site. Park staff do not conduct programs at the site, instead concentrating on Wormsloe's rich colonial history.

Lewis H. Strickland, writing for the Isle of Hope Historical Association, says: “This unimproved woods road that skirts the marsh in many areas provides several imposing vistas. Scenic fresh water ponds, views of the Intracoastal Waterway, destroyed whiskey stills and atypical coastal woodlands greet the hiker. Access is not presently open to the public but arrangements can be made for groups to visit the fort.”

A marker on the trail provides some information on the obscure fort, but tells visitors to stay well away from the earthworks.

Jim Ogden (far left) led interpretation at Wormsloe, other sites (GBA photo)

Officials in the past have decried the effects of relic hunting and worried about people crawling over the earthworks. The Picket has reached out to park management about public access but has received no reply.

Mary-Elizabeth Ellard, GBA secretary and trustee, said the group had communicated with the park before its Ogden-led tour of the 200 yards of earthworks. There is a small trail around the fortification.

“Multiple people commented that how well it is preserved was the most noteworthy part of that visit,” Ellard to the Picket in an email. “Also, circling the works gives a sense of size and its proximity to the water (hence its value for locating a fort).”

A recent GBA newsletter said Wimberly “illustrated how the many Confederate sand and earth forts were both substantial and -- compared to masonry forts -- quickly reparable.”

Fort Wimberly might not be as well-known or important as the larger Confederate Fort Jackson or Fort McAllister, but “it is part of a system, along with Causten's, Thunderbolt, and the others, that is a window into several other usually overlooked aspects of the Civil War era,” says Ogden.