Snag found and tentatively identified by Spence as the remains of an iron buoy which once marked the wreck of the Housatonic.

   

In 1979 Dr. E. Lee Spence, Captain Jack Parker of McClellanville, South Carolina, and captains Walter O'Neal Jr. & Sr. of Belhaven, North Carolina, discovered a piece of unusually constructed iron wreckage and after first ruling out the possibility that it was an up-ended piece of the Hunley, speculated: Was it a buoy which had once marked the wreck of the Housatonic or was it the remains of a second Civil War submarine shipwrecked near the wrecks of the Confederate submarine Hunley and the United States gunboat Housatonic? {Note: This piece of wreckage was first snagged by the O'Neals, about the time they first met Spence. Because of its relative proximity to Spence's previously mapped location for the Hunley, Spence had them take him out to the site, so he could dive on it and possibly identify it. Spence had originally hoped that it was the Hunley. However, once he had dived on it and carefully plotted it's position, it was clear that although close, it was not at the same location (the two sites are approximately 150 yards apart) and was not the same object he had found in 1970 and (as now proven) had correctly identified as the Hunley.}

        This was an open letter I (E. Lee Spence) sent out to several hundred underwater archaeologists and historians via a forum on the internet. It was my attempt to interest others (and hopefully get information) on an object which I first dived on in 1979, with the generous help of Captain Jack Parker, now of Eutawville, South Carolina (803 492-4141), and captains Walter O'Neal Jr. & Sr. of Belhaven, North Carolina.
        This object should not be confused with the object I have already identified as the wreck of the Confederate submarine  Hunley which I had discovered in 1970 as the two objects are of very different construction. One other thing that should make it clear that I did not believe this was the same object that I had found and identified as the Hunley in 1970, is that, when I testified under oath before the Hunley Commission in 1995 about my discovery of the Hunley, I clearly and emphatically stated that the only time I had actually seen the Hunley exposed was on my very first dive to the site and that at all other times the Hunley was buried. 
         It is my understanding that this object has now been closely examined by underwater archaeologists working on the Hunley recovery project and those archaeologists are apparently in agreement with my tentative identification of this object as a buoy and that it may indeed have once been used to mark the wreck of the Housatonic.
        I have left this letter on the web as I think it was an interesting piece of reasoning and it shows that although I was open to other possibilities, I personally believed (and still believe) it was the remains of the old Housatonic wreck buoy.
        The buoy site is shown as "O'Neal" in my notes and as "W.O." on my 1979 chart (both short for Walter O'Neal) and is approximately 450' from the center point that I used in my 1974 filing of the Hunley's location with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. That center point was originally  plotted from magnetic bearings I took at the site the day I actually discovered the wreck in 1970.
    The original letter follows - ELS

In 1979, I dove on a heavily incrusted iron object (which stuck out of the sand to a height of about 2 feet) which had been snagged on at least two previous occasions by the 82' trawler Walter & Daphne at approximately latitude 32 degrees 43 minutes 01 seconds north, longitude 79 degrees 46 minutes 28 seconds west (near the entrance to Charleston, South Carolina).

Upon examination (i.e. first attempting to use a folding shovel, which I lost on the site, and then hand fanning the sand to a level below the incrustation) I found the object (below sand level) to be fairly clean of growth and of quite unusual construction. It appeared to be of 1/4" (or less) thick riveted iron or steel. (I could put my open palm around the "leading" edge as though it was like the "cut water or bow of a ship (or submarine?). But the object's shape may easily have been a distortion caused by the object having been flattened or crushed.) The plates were quite narrow (which seemed to indicate that strength was important) and the plates had been scalloped or cut back between the rivets (which I assumed had been done in an effort to reduce weight). If so, it would indicate to me that the object needed to both strong and light weight.

The plastic jugs and foam buoys I placed on the object are long since gone, but my buoy lines should still be there. This object is within 500 hundred yards (note: it plots as approximately 450') of where I had previously (1970) found an object which I had tentatively (and correctly) identified as the Civil War era submarine Hunley. (Note: In 1995, at the request of the Hunley Commission, I donated my rights to the Hunley to the State of South Carolina with the South Carolina Attorney General signing on behalf of the State.) The object was of such unusual construction that my first reaction (because of its close proximity to the object I had already identified as the Hunley) was that it had been a portion of the Hunley which had been torn loose by a trawler (the trawler Walter & Daphne had snagged this particular object on at least two occasions). But closer examination convinced me (correctly) that it was not. (Although this object has yet to be examined by SCIAA, their assessment that the Hunley is intact certainly supports my conclusion that this object is not something that was torn loose from the Hunley.)

Since the object's construction does not match anything on the Hunley, nor anything I have seen on a normal iron vessel, nor anything on boilers I have seen, I have since speculated that the object might be the remains of a buoy (possibly the buoy which was placed over the wreck of the Housatonic) to warn mariner's of that obstruction. (If so the buoy would not only have to have been sunk, it would have to have been crushed or flattened to have produced the shape of the exposed portion.) Another (albeit seemingly more farfetched but possibly more likely) possibility is that the object is part of the wreck of a previously undiscovered submarine. (Please note that the reason I personally doubt that this object is a boiler is that I have seen a very large number of ship's boilers and none of those were even remotely similar to this object. However, the possibility that this object is a boiler should definitely not be ruled out. Remember, until the object I had found in 1970 and tentatively identified as the Hunley was independently examined by NUMA in 1995 and SCIAA in 1996, I wasn't willing to rule out the possibility that that object wasn't simply a boiler. To have ruled that possibility out without more investigation, would not have been good archaeology.) (Because I am totally unfamiliar with the construction of 19th century government buoys, and because of this object's proximity to the Housatonic wreck site which was definitely marked by a buoy for at least the first forty years after the Civil War, I can't rule out the possibility that this object is a buoy and that it was the one used to mark the Housatonic as an obstruction to mariners.)

To me, the Housatonic buoy theory makes far more sense (or rather logic, than the submarine theory, which almost seems to defy the laws of chance, or the boiler theory which goes against my knowledge of boiler construction), but the object's unusual construction seems (to me) like it would have been too heavy and far too expensive for a mere buoy (or boiler). So what is it? Could it be a submarine? Does anyone know of a submarine (other than the Hunley, which this is not), which has been lost in this area? Could this object have been part of a salvage vessel of some sort which was used in conjunction with the search efforts for the Hunley or for the salvage on the Housatonic ? My research indicates that submarines (or at least semi-submersible) were used as support vessels for divers engaged in repairs and hull cleaning of the ironclads and other vessels in the Federal blockade fleet at Charleston. When viewed in that light, this theory makes more sense than the buoy or boiler theories as the construction just seems to be "overkill" for either of those, but it would not necessarily be "overkill" for a submarine or semi-submersible. If it was a search or salvage submarine or semi-submersible, it might explain why it was so close to the wrecks of the Housatonic and the Hunley. One drawback to that explanation is that I haven't located any research which would indicate that any semi-submersible or submarine (other than the Hunley) was ever lost in this specific area. (This object and the wrecks of the Hunley and the Housatonic are all within the approximately 1/5th of a square nautical mile area that I mapped and filed with the Federal Court as part of my Hunley discovery claim in 1980. The area is small enough to do a magnetometer search for an object the size of the Hunley within one afternoon, which is why I say the proximity of this object to the other wrecks seems to be too coincidental for the object not to have somehow been related to those wrecks.)

Although my research shows that at least one Federal submarine (USS Alligator) was lost (April 2, 1863) while it was being towed from Newport News, Virginia, to Port Royal, South Carolina, I believe the odds against the Alligator having sunk at such a coincidental location are overwhelming, and I don't seriously consider that identification a viable theory.

Does anyone else have the answer or even an idea or a suggestion? I am open to all logically based theories. I shared this information (including a rough sketch of the scalloped plates and rivet pattern and a map pinpointing the exact location and the coordinates noted at the start of this letter) with the folks at SCIAA and the Hunley Commission almost three years ago (and with various government officials in Washington as far back as 1981 (actually 1980)) but, so far, I have received no feedback from anyone. (I don't know if they were stumped, as I am, or they simply got sidetracked, although I suspect the latter was more likely. Regardless, someone must have some ideas and I would like to hear them.)

I hate to see this object ignored (just as I hated to see the Hunley neglected for the over 25 years that elapsed between the time I first found and reported it in 1970 and the time NUMA and the SCIAA went to the site and positively confirmed that wreck's identity). Whatever it is, it is very unusual and I firmly believe it should be properly examined (Note: It is my understanding that since I first published this letter, it has been examined and that it is believed to be the wreck buoy for the Housatonic.)

Still one more possibility is that this object is the remains of a quite large floating (but anchored) mine (torpedo) such as those used by the Confederates in the defense of Charleston Harbor. In that case the construction might make sense, but it still would not explain the coincidence of the object's present location.

Even though it still seems (to me) somewhat far-fetched, until further archaeological investigation has ruled it out, we should not discount what I believe is a very real possibility that this object is actually a Civil War era submarine or semi-submersible. Even if it is, I doubt that it was one used in conjunction with the attack on the Housatonic (although that can't be ruled out without further research and archaeological investigation) but rather one involved in the search for the wreck of the Hunley or in the Housatonic's immediate or post war salvage.

Unfortunately, because of the object's relatively close proximity to the Hunley wreck site, I am unwilling to dive on it (to conduct further examination) for fear that the intent of my dive would be misinterpreted.

E. Lee Spence