Jump to content

Talk:CSS Shenandoah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shenandoah Picture

[edit]

the picture that states it to be a penciled drawing looks like an album cover being that it says RCA victor in the top left —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.134.83 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Prizes

[edit]

En route to the Cape she picked up six prizes -- What's a prize? Do I need to be a naval or civil war historian to understand this article?

A captured ship. You must have been home that day. --Wetman 11:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a same article?

[edit]

CSS Shenandoah (1864)? Can anybody fix it? RamBow 11:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been merged into this article and is now a redirect. JamesMLane t c 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question re effect on U.S.-flag shipping

[edit]

I don't understand this passage in the article (final paragraph of text):

A recent historian of the Shenandoah has assessed Waddell's depredations at dealing a death-blow to the New England whaling industry and crippling Union shipping: in 1860, two-thirds of the shipping tonnage leaving New York harbor was in American ships. Three years later foreign shipping, especially that of Great Britainy, carried three-quarters of the trade.

If the latter datum is from "three years later" than 1860, then it's from 1863. The Shenandoah wasn't commissioned until 1864. How can it have been responsible for the observed decrease in American shipping earlier in the war? JamesMLane t c 23:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not convinced that Shenandoah was the cause of British domination of world shipping. I suspect that Britain dominated world shipping well before the outbreak of the US Civil War - and probably did from the decline of the Dutch East India Company (late C18). Duncan 07:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the paragraph spoken of above. Exactly how did the Shenandoah's cruise result in a "death-blow to New England whaling" when it only burned or bonded less than 30 Union whaleships (I believe one was Hawaiian) out of a fleet that numbered 276 sail in 1865 (Scammon 1874, p. 243)? Yes, Confederate raiders may have caused insurance rates to increase and the war itself did stimulate the demand for petroleum, which increasingly replaced whale oil in the use of illumination, but the cruise of the Shenandoah itself didn't have a devastating effect on the trade. Jonas Poole (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Answer: Based solely on the quote you pasted using you as the source, you misread the quote. You have to read it as written with the : which you ignored completly changing the context.

The quote starts by making a statement.

A recent historian of the Shenandoah has assessed Waddell's depredations at dealing a death-blow to the New England whaling industry and crippling Union shipping:

Then it attempts to present credibility by comparing shipping before and after the Confederate commerce raiding. 1860 as you pointed out was before the war showing shipping tonnage, then compares that to 3 years later mid civil war, when commerce raiding had an effect on Union Shipping, thus showing the effect. Again based solely on the quote you provided.

in 1860, two-thirds of the shipping tonnage leaving New York harbor was in American ships. Three years later foreign shipping, especially that of Great Britainy, carried three-quarters of the trade.

Shenandoah did put the nail in the coffin of New England Whaling burning those ships in the Bering Strait but Im not going to research it to proide the quotes. There were two Oil rushes to alaska. The first for Whale Oil and the second for Petroleum Oil. Im not aware of another radier in the Bering Strait, and most Whalers were from New England according to the Ship logs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.186.192 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannons?

[edit]

On the sidebar under General Characteristics, the armament is described as XXX cannons. I thought that the navy always referred to cannons as guns. See the wiki article on gun. --Bjskelly 04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed rumor about final disposition of flag

[edit]

The article used to read: "The final disposition of this flag is uncertain (a source at the Museum of the Confederacy heard a rumor of the flag being at a maritime museum in Maine)."

I removed the part in parentheses, because it reports a rumor, which is not verifiable (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). 68.92.149.90 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the "Palmetto Flag" reported in the Liverpool Mercury? Was it the same as the flag of South Carolina? Goustien (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stowaways?

[edit]

"...also took on 42 crew who were stowaways from Melbourne." So, there were 42 stowaways found after the ship left Melbourne? All of them enlisted? Doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.11 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the implication is that they were convicts who were escaping from their term of imprisonment. However, from the wiki article Convictism_in_Australia its difficult to tell if there would have been many convicts in Melbourne at the time. Certainly it was long after the last transport of convicts arrived in Victoria, but in theory some of the convicts could still have been under sentence at the time... Duncan 07:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this for sure, but the implication I got is that the Confederates would have been well aware that the 'stowaways' were aboard the ship but didn't offically invite them on, as I imagine that British subjects weren't allowed to enlist in foreign navies, nor were foreign navies allowed to recruit British subjects. In this way that were only stowaways in the sense that the Confederates were waiting until they left Australian waters before offically recognising their existence. The reason that all 42 of them enlisted is that all 42 of them came on board with the intention of enlisting. Note also that by 1865 Melbourne had long since ceased to be merely a penal colony and was instead a bustling metropolis. It is possible that the recruits were criminals (though highly unlikly that they were transported convicts) however their reasons for enlisting were probably the same as anyone who joined the navy at that point - money, adventure, love of the sea, etc. Ted BJ (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They stowed away on board the ship while it was in dry dock undergoing repairs. The crew and officers of the ship knew full well that people had hidden themselves on board, but as they desperately needed manpower they defied the local government to search the ship for stowaways by bluffing them with repercussions on behalf of the CSA, even though their actions were illegal. The governor wanted them gone and, as repairs were mostly finished at this point anyways, the Captain and XO agreed to shove off ASAP. Once they hit open waters, lo and behold but here were stowaways on board, who agreed to sail for the CSA. 2606:A000:71C5:2800:B45D:A7BC:6C39:15EA (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No convicts were ever sent to Melbourne or Victoria. In the 1840s the authorities tried to send a shipload of "exiles" (or lesser criminals), but when it arrived in Melbourne public riots forced the authorities to send the ship on to Sydney. By 1865 Melbourne was one of the richest cities in the world with incomes far above those found in Europe or even North America in spite of a mandated maximum 8 hour work day in most industries. It was also a liberal democracy with "responsible government" (effectively independence except for foreign affairs), universal male suffrage and some of the most generous government assistance in the world at that time. So there was little reason for anyone to want to "escape". Thus the stowaways could probably only be motivated by either sympathy for the Confederate cause or, perhaps more likely, a desire for adventure. (I write Victorian history and have won a few awards for my work, so I'm happy to back this up from solid sources if anyone doubts its veracity). --Bogong (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Goverment sued

[edit]

In 1872 via a international court in Geneva, the British Goverment was found liable for the extensive damage done by the Shenandoah by its sinking of US whaling ships after the Civil War had ended. This case was won by the US goverment; the British were found liable because the Shenandoah had had repairs in the colony of Victoria (Capital: Melbourne),then a dominian of the British empire. The British had to pay out US$15.5 million dollars. See J.T. Scharf History of the Confederate Navy 1996 ed. pp 811-812 M Bateman-Graham 203.171.197.209 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for surrendering in Liverpool

[edit]

Is there any known reason why Waddell took Shenandoah all the way from the pacific to Liverpool instead of putting into port somewhere in California to surrender? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.166.237 (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ship's official/named owner when it was the Sea King was from Liverpool. Liverpool was the most important city to the Confederacy outside of America. I doubt the captain or crew would want to surrender in the USA. A lot of the crew were British and would have been happier ending up in the UK than a formerly enemy nation. Note they surrendered to the UK not the USA. Canalwalker (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Waddell couldnt take the ship to america or they would have been hung as Pirates. Commerce Raiders werent part of the Pardon given to Confederate fighters. Choices were Cape Horn Africa, Back to Austraila, or Liverpool. Check out "Last Flag Down" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.186.192 (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

This article has been automatically assessed for WP:SHIPS as start-class based on its WP:MILHIST assessment. HausTalk 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prizes

[edit]

Thanks for the clarification there. I was also wondering about that, and think that a simple explanation of the term is warranted (as this is an encyclopedia) -- as opposed to a snark reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.204.185 (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Termination" of the war

[edit]

The article referred to news being received on August 2 of the war's "termination some 4 months before"... presumably this is a reference to Gen. Lee's surrender at Appomattox on April 9 (widely and incorrectly believed to be the end of the fighting). However at least four notable Confederate forces remained in the field after this date, with Generals Joseph Johnston, Richard Taylor, Kirby Smith and Stand Watie making separate surrenders over the course of three months after Lee's. Some small units remained active longer still, and of course the Shenandoah itself continued operating on a military footing; this same article says the ship "fired the last shot" of the war. So describing the events of early April as the "termination" of the war is hardly appropriate. Spark240 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spark240 - perhaps you would like to improve on the article I started on the Conclusion of the American Civil War. --Doug Coldwell talk 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repercussions

[edit]

Hey gang, I added the Repercussions section to the page to bring it more inline with the CSS Alabama page. I basically copied and pasted it from there and added in the unique data as found in "Last Flag Down." Also the Australia and the American Civil War mentions the suit against Britain by the United States was about her entire wartime activity so I threw that in there too. Vdrj2 (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

[edit]

I don't know if this is a result of article merger or not, but this article is wildly disorganized, jumping back and forth as to time, subject, and story (development) line. While the references seem to be up to snuff, the text is very hard to follow for more than a paragraph or two, and redundancies abound. What gives?--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officers list

[edit]

A hidden list of the Shenandoah's officers has been added to CSS_Shenandoah#Surrender_of_CSS_Shenandoah in the same spirit as the long standing but more intrusive crew list for the CSS_Alabama: CSS_Alabama#CSS_Alabama.27s_officers_and_crew. In time this may be developed as a freestanding section of prose, if more is learned about more of the officers.-Marcus334 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CSS Shenandoah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CSS Shenandoah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CSS Shenandoah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CSS Shenandoah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whittle's Importance?

[edit]

The book Last Flag Down by John Baldwin and Ron Powers focuses mostly on Whittle, and makes it seem as if he were really in charge (though it does say that the Captain, Waddell, had the final say in sailing matters). However, the article barely mentions Whittle except at the end. As the XO did he really have the power that the book acts like he has (basically the same as a company representative for, say, the East India Company) or does it simply focus on him due to his journal?

Article assessment

[edit]
This article is rated as B-class. While there are no page tags the article has around 10 inline "citation needed" tags. There is a "discuss" tag in the Surrender of CSS Shenandoah section following "The crew predicted that surrendering to federal authorities would run the risk of being tried in a U.S. court and hanged as pirates.", The tag points to this talk page with no apparent discussion.
Number one of the class assessment criteria states: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.", and number two states "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.". At least some of the tags are dated 2015 so some of the content has been deemed important or controversial for a good while. Tagging of material does imply that the content needs sourcing in general for verification and specifically to remove implications of WP:OR. The content sentence noted above begins with "The crew predicted...". This very likely would have been a concern but such wording (state of mind or historical crew discussion) would mean there are a host of reasons why this needs sourcing. These tags need addressing as according to the criteria this article may have been prematurely promoted. Certainly these issues will hinder any possible reassessment to a higher class. Otr500 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So reassess it. If it's not b class anymore, downgrade it. Llammakey (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Storm Ensign" of the Shenandoah

[edit]

On the website "Confederate Flags at Sea" I have seen a variant of the "Stainless Banne" which larger than normal stars described as a "Storm Ensign" of the Shenandoah, I made a recreation of the flag. I don't know whether to include it or not. Here is a link to the flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardie1993 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

[edit]

This article is on a primarily US-related topic, so I would expect it to use mdy dates. But it actually has {{Use dmy dates}}. Why? Hairy Dude (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Union Jack

[edit]

"The new Confederate cruiser was commissioned on 19 October 1864, lowering the Union Jack and raising the "Stainless Banner", and was renamed CSS Shenandoah."


As commercial maritime ships of the UK do not (and did not) fly the Union Flag - they fly the Red Ensign (which incorporates the Union Flag). This seems to call into question the statement bas written. Pittspilot (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:CSS_Shenandoah&oldid=1228451231"