Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

Virginia native William Thornton Glassell (right, 1831-1879) was a Lieutenant aboard U.S.S. Hartford in Chinese waters when the Civil War broke out. When the ship returned to Philadelphia on December 2, 1861, Glassell refused to take the oath to the United States. He was formally dismissed from the U.S. Navy on December 6, and so was arrested and imprisoned at Fort Warren. In time he was issued a commission by the Confederate government and, now being considered a prisoner of war, Glassell was eventually exchanged. Once in Confederate service, Lieutenant Glassell, C.S.N. assigned to the ironclad Chicora at Charleston.

Chafing for the opportunity to strike more directly at the Federal blockading fleet offshore, Glassell volunteered for duty in one of the more unconventional programs then being organized at Charleston, and took command of the little steam torpedo launch David. These cigar-shaped torpedo boats — the name of the first boat was an allusion to the biblical story of David and Goliath — had ballast tanks that allowed them to run almost completely submerged. They were fitted with a fixed torpedo on the end of a long spar, that could be rammed into the side of an enemy ship. It was a dangerous tactic, as much for the attacker as for the target, but the Confederates at Charleston were increasingly anxious to strike a real blow at the Union Navy. On the evening of October 5, 1863, Lieutenant Glassell and his three-man crew set out to attack the most prominent of the blockading ships offshore, U.S.S. New Ironsides.

 
The torpedo goes off.

Fireman James Sullivan and Engineer Toombs dived overboard with Glassell, as well. Pilot J. Walker Cannon remained with the boat because, some sources say, he could not swim — a remarkable fact, if true, given the semi-submerged nature of his craft, even in the best conditions. Glassell and Sullivan were picked up by Federal picket boats; Toombs scrambled back aboard David and, with Cannon guiding him, managed to return safely to Charleston. In his follow-up report to Confederate authorities, Toombs recounted that “the conduct of Lieutenant Glassell was as cool and collected as if he had been on an excursion of pleasure, and the hope of all is that he may yet be in safety.” Toombs reserrved his highest praise for Cannon, though, who in the engineer’s’ view “has won for himself a reputation that time cannot efface, and deserves well of his country, as, without his valuable aid, I could not have reached the city.” Engineer Toombs succeeded to command of the torpedo boat David.

U.S. Navy Acting Ensign Charles W. Howard, the officer of the deck of U.S.S. New Ironsides who was shot by Glassell, died of his wound on October 10. After Howard’s injury, Admiral Dahlgren had recommended him for promotion to Acting Master, which was formally granted on October 16, 1863, in recognition of his “gallant conduct in face of enemy.” Howard’s remains were subsequently buried in Beaufort National Cemetery. A Wickes Class destroyer, DD-179, was later named for him.

Glassell remained in Union hands until the last few months of the war, when he was again exchanged. This time he was assigned to the naval defenses of Richmond, commanding the ironclad Fredericksburg in the James River Squadron.

After the war, Glassell traveled to California, where his brother Andrew was active in land speculation. The Glassell brothers surveyed much of central and southern California, and Andrew Glassell helped establish the city of Orange, California. William Thornton Glassell died in Los Angeles in January 1879, leaving neither a wife nor children. He is buried in Angelus Rosedale Cemetery in Los Angeles.

Fun fact: William Thornton Glassell’s younger sister, Sarah Thornton Glassell, married George Smith Patton, a Confederate officer killed at the Third Battle of Winchester. The Confederate naval officer who very nearly sank U.S.S. New Ironsides was the grand-uncle of the famous World War II General, George S. Patton, Jr.

_____________

__________

Via Mark Jenkins at CWT, word comes today that the two sailors whose remains were found in the turret of U.S.S. Monitor will be buried on March 8 at Arlington National Cemetery. Although there has been public speculation about their possible identities, those cannot be confirmed, so they will be buried as “unknowns.” Research will continue in an effort to identify them at some future date.

March 8 will be the 151st anniversary of the arrival of Monitor at Newport News, the evening before her famous battle with the Confederate ironclad Virginia. This year also marks mark the 40th anniversary of the 1973 discovery of the Monitor wreck site off Cape Hatteras, and the beginning of an unprecedented series of archaeological and historical studies on the naval history of the Civil War. The work on Monitor provided a template for later investigations on the Confederate submersible H. L. Hunley, located off Charleston more than two decades later.

Earlier posts about Monitor:

• The Third Assistant Engineer
• U.S.S. Monitor Turret Revealed
• Monitor’s Screw

___________

Can’t make this stuff up:

The approximately 10 x 15-foot flag was up for a couple of hours before anyone noticed. Because, you know, Mississippi.

______________

U.S. Representative Joe Coutrtney (D-Connecticut) is very unhappy that Spielberg’s film depicts one of his state’s House delegation as voting against the 13th Amendment. All four House members from that state voted in favor of the measure, so he’s right on the facts. But his argument is silly:

We need to get beyond visions of the past based on what seems obvious or logical or rational in hindsight, and take time to look at what people actually did and and said at the time, which often turns out to be irrational, illogical, self-defeating, and completely out of touch with modern values. In fact, almost five dozen members of the House of Representatives, every one from a Union state, voted “on the wrong side of history” that day. Connecticut was hardly a hotbed of abolitionist sentiment, either; it had hung on to the institution until 1848, and there was great apprehension there about the impact universal emancipation would have on white labor in the state’s cotton mills. These are aspects of Connecticut’s history in the 19th century that Rep. Courtney may not know, but they were very real parts of the political landscape in 1865.

Courtney would have done better to tell the story of Rep. James E. English (right, 1812-90), the lame-duck Democrat who had voted against the measure when it first came up the previous year, but went to rather extraordinary lengths to help pass it when it came up for a vote again in January 1865:

That’s one helluva story, right there. And English was not politically ruined; he went on to serve two terms as the Governor of Connecticut, and served briefly in the U.S. Senate as an interim appointment in 1875-76.

As many folks have pointed out, much of the criticism of Spielberg’s film from historians has amounted to the latter whinging that he and Tony Kushner didn’t make the movie they themselves would have made. Fine, whatever. Rep. Courtney’s criticism is much more valid, even if it’s motivated as much by home-state boosterism as it is by an interest in historical accuracy. Spielberg and Kushner could have — should have — avoided this business altogether by simply depicting the “nay” votes in the House as they really were, explicitly by name, without worrying about what their great-great-great-grandkids might think.

Norwood B. “Tripp” Lewis III will be arraigned at 9 a.m. Monday in Richmond on a Class 1 Misdemeanor charge of “trespass after having been forbidden to do so” (Code of Virginia § 18.2-119). This is a more serious charge than (say) creeping around a cemetery at night, or trespass on school or church property which, unless compounded by other bad acts or intent, are considered lower-level misdemeanors. Lewis was apparently charged with a more serious offense by virtue of the fact that he had been repeatedly warned off the property previously. Lewis is expected to enter a plea of not guilty, in which case a trial date will be set by the court.

In thinking about this case, I realize that I have an analogous circumstance myself. Lewis’ actions, on January 12, were claimed by him to be in honor of his ancestor, who was admitted to what was then the Confederate Home on that property. I have a Confederate ancestor who settled here in Texas after the war, whose property was bought many years later by the state, and a public university built on that land. I’ve even read that the site where my ancestor’s home once stood is now occupied by the university’s student center.

There are similarities with the situation at VMFA. The land in Texas is owned by the state, but administered under law by a publicly-chartered organization, with its own security and the authority to set its own rules. The spot where my relative’s house stood is, within the context of a university, a public space. Could I march up and down in front of the student center with a Confederate flag and uniform to “honor” that relative? Sure. Do I have an inherent right to do so, even if campus police order me off the premises? Does the claim that I’m “honoring my ancestor” provide an affirmative defense against what is otherwise defined by state law as a criminal act? I doubt many courts, at any level and in any jurisdiction, are going to buy that argument. For that matter, I doubt many would even entertain it as a defense, since the charge Lewis is facing — “trespass after having been forbidden to do so” — is extremely narrow, and easily provable by the prosecution. (“Did you tell him not to come back on the property?” “Yes.” “Did he?” “Yes.”) Even on the larger issue of whether Lewis and other Flaggers are within their rights to protest on the VMFA grounds, some of their supporters believe that violates the law. One true Confederate, whose commitment to the Flaggers’ cause has never been doubted, was blunt in his assessment: “the Flaggers ‘BY LAW’ have no right to go on VMFA property.“

Mr. Lewis has a lot to think about this weekend. He has an absolute right to pursue this case and defend his actions as best he can. But I cannot see it ending well for either him or his supporters in the end.

____________

Update, February 4: Lewis received a continuance Monday until new hearing, now scheduled for March 22, with the notation “appoint attorney.” I don’t know if that indicates a request for more time to hire a private attorney, or a request to have the court appoint one for him.

____________

Update, February 7: As Dave Tatum points out in the comments, at Monday’s hearing the state and the VMFA requested an order barring Lewis from the property, which was denied. Both the motion and the court’s denial seem routine to me in a trespassing case of this sort.

____________