SC Maritime History Links

Mepkin Sloop and other colonial era sloops serving plantations

Historical sources were consulted to see if a vessel of this size had ever been registered or reported sunk in the vicinity of the Mepkin plantation. During the mid to late 18th century, Mepkin plantation belonged to the wealthy and respected Henry Laurens, a dedicated American patriot and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Born in Charleston, South Carolina in 1724, Laurens died at Mepkin plantation in 1792. 

He was president of the first and second Councils of Safety 1775- 1776; president of the first Provincial Congress of South Carolina in 1775; vice president of South Carolina in 1776; and president of the Continental Congress 1777-1778. Laurens was elected Minister Plenipotentiary to Holland in 1779, and was captured at sea while sailing to fulfill that mission during the American Revolutionary War. He was the only American prisoner of war to be confined in the Tower of London. After 15 months he was released in exchange for Lord Cornwallis who was captured along with his army at Yorktown in 1781. In 1783, Henry Laurens, along with John Jay, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, represented the United States and signed the peace treaty in Paris that brought an end to the Revolutionary War (Chesnutt and Taylor, eds., 1999). 

Henry Laurens’ career had a less-savory aspect: he earned his vast wealth as a trans-Atlantic merchant, and slaves were one of his most profitable cargoes. He was one of the largest owners and importers of African slaves of his period. Laurens invested his money in rice plantations, and staffed them with hand-picked slaves. Over time he became one of the wealthiest men in America. His Mepkin Plantation was a success, 8 and even after his death it continued to produce rice under the yoke of slavery. The plantation was handed down, father to son, and remained in the Laurens family until the middle of the 19th century when the property was transferred to the South Carolina Society for $900 per year on a lease/sell agreement (Charleston County Book of Deeds L12:517). Much of this is described in The Papers of Henry Laurens, edited by Philip M. Hammer and George C. Rogers, Jr., and published for the South Carolina Historical Society by the University of South Carolina Press (1981). The papers also inform us that Henry Laurens owned a vessel called the Baker, which belonged to the Mepkin plantation and traveled between the plantation and the port city of Charleston. In 1763 the overseer of Mepkin arranged for a schooner (probably the Baker) to be built as a plantation boat. In a 1766 Mepkin estate inventory, the Baker, with four slave crew members, was valued at 2,600 pounds (Hammer and Rogers, eds., 1981; vol. 6, p. 613). 

In 1771 Laurens ordered that the Baker be converted from a schooner into a single masted sloop, for in his travels north he had seen similar vessels that had been converted to this rig. He wrote that by converting the schooner to a sloop the ‘Labor and Expence of at Least one Man is saved by such Rigging’ and that there would also be ‘some Advantage gained in Point of Sailing’ (Hammer and Rogers, eds., 1981; vol. 7, p. 566 footnotes).

The Baker is discussed a number of times in letters written to Henry by his brother James. On October 19th 1773, James noted: 

The Baker is so much out of repair that I expect it will cost a great sum to put her in order. But as there is near 400 cord of Wood ready for her I must put her into the hands of Tweed & Mr. Rose promises to Look into her & make the best agreement he can for you (Hammer and Rogers, eds., 1981; vol. 9, p. 126). 9 One month later, on November 30th, James stated: I have but lately got the Baker out of the Carpenters Hands & now it appears that her bottom is so bad, that it remains a Doubt whether she will swim with a Load of Wood which she is gone to make tryal of. It was the Carpenter’s opinion, that to Give her a new Bottom & thorough Repair would be as Expensive as to Build a new Vessel, & besides that she would not have been finish’d for this Season. Therefore I thought it best to Defer that. If it proves unfit for Service, I must endeavor to sell the Wood which is Cut at the Landing (Hammer and Rogers, eds., 1981; vol. 9, p. 183). 

On December 22nd 1773, James wrote: 

I have had Sam & 7 Negro fellows from Mepkin this fortnight Past Repairing the Dam & laying down two new trunks to let off the Water…I send them back tomorrow in the Baker (who brings her Cargo notwithstanding her Worm eaten Bottom) very well taking care not to Load deep (Hammer and Rogers, eds., 1981; vol. 9, p. 204). 

Finally, on July 19th 1774, Laurens concluded: 

Your Schooner Baker is now unfit for service & I could not Venture to put her into the Carpenter’s hands as Tweed assur’d me it would be as Expensive to repair her as to build a New Vessel of Equal Burthen. I mention’d this formerly but you did not give me any directions about repairing or Purchasing another (Hammer and Rogers, eds., 1981; vol. 9, p. 513). 

The location of the shipwreck and the letters from the papers of Henry Laurens all pointed to the possibility that the Mepkin Abbey shipwreck was the Baker. Because of the historical importance of Henry Laurens, it was tempting to link the Mepkin Abbey vessel to him. Furthermore, the Mepkin Abbey shipwreck showed signs of modifications to its mast step which fit with Laurens’ directions to convert the schooner into a sloop. Even if it was not of Henry Laurens’ era, the wreck may have been a vessel owned by the Laurens family as the plantation remained in their possession for generations. . . .

Mepkin belonged to the Laurens family for 93 years, from 1762 when Henry Laurens bought the plantation, until his great grandson John Ball Laurens signed over the title in 1855. During this entire period rice was the primary crop, and river travel the main means of transportation. This was true not only at Mepkin, but throughout the South Carolina Low Country. Whether or not the Mepkin Abbey shipwreck was once Henry Laurens’ Baker, or the plantation vessel of one of his family members or even that of a neighbor, the importance of the vessel is considerable: It is an archaeological link to South Carolina’s maritime, agricultural, and commercial heritage. . . .

The wreck lies beneath 20 to 30 feet (6.1 to 9.1 m) of black water. The term ‘black water’ refers to water that has the appearance of dark tea, a result of cypress trees releasing tannic acid into the river. Visibility in this water is usually low to nonexistent. The river’s powerful current makes it feasible to dive only during an incoming tide. The tide creates a six-hour flow in each direction, and the water level changes by approximately six feet (1.8 m) with each tidal change. We had to wait at the dock until the tide had risen enough to float the dive boats. On a typical day this left us with about a four-hour window of dive time. . . .

The remainder of the artifact research was done using historic reference materials, primarily searching for information on the two maker’s marks found on the artifacts. The maker’s mark on jug 7 (Figure 22), which reads ‘P. CROSS HARTFORD,’ refers to Peter Cross of Hartford Connecticut, who was a potter during the years 1805-1818 . . .

Keel 

 The keel was originally 41 feet, 3 inches (12.57 m) in length, although the forward tip has eroded, leaving only 41 feet (12.49 m) remaining. It is accessible only at its forward and after end. The forward end of the keel currently has a sided dimension of 6 inches (15.24 cm) and a molded dimension of 2 inches (5.08 cm) where it joins the stem with a flat scarf with two stopwaters. The scarf rises diagonally, aft, a distance of 2 feet, 4.5 inches (72.39 cm) to a molded dimension of 8 inches (20.32 cm) where the stem scarf ends at the nib; here the keel shears straight up another 2 inches (5.08 cm) to a maximum molded dimension of 10 inches (25.4 cm). It has a sided dimension of 10 inches (25.4 cm) at this location, but the top corners are chamfered 2 inches (5.08 cm) in and 2 inches (5.08 cm) down from the rabbet leaving the flat-topped surface of the keel with only a 6 inches (15.24 cm) sided dimension. It is believed that the rabbet extends aft on the keel to a point, about 8 feet, 8 inches (2.64 m) from the end where it is again  visible. This is where the rabbet curves up and into the deadwood. From here, the keel then tapers to 6 inches (15.24 cm) molded and sided at its after end. At the stern, the top of the keel contains a highly eroded mortise, 3.5 inches (8.89 cm) deep, 5 inches long (12.7 cm), and 3 inches wide (7.628 cm), for the stern post tenon. A wood sample was not taken from the keel for identification of the species. 

Stem 

The stem (Figure 4) is made of live oak according to the results of the 1980 wood analysis (this report is the source for all information on wood types). It is molded 2 inches (5.08 cm) and sided 6 inches (15.24 cm) where it joins the keel with a flat scarf 2 feet, 4.5 inches (72.39 cm) long. The stem then curves the remainder of its 10 feet, 5 inches (3.17 m) length ending at a height (above the base of the keel) of 6 feet, 8 inches (2.03 m). The molded dimension forward of the scarf is 13.5 inches (34.29 cm) and the piece tapers upward to 7 inches (17.78 cm) at its tip. Its sided dimension broadens from 6 inches (15.24 cm) at the scarf to 10 inches (25.4 cm) at the top. The after corners of the stem have a 2 inch (5.08 cm) rabbet for 4 feet, 11 inches (1.5 m), from the stem’s aftermost end to where the rabbet merges into the upper apron. A 4 inch (10.16 cm) diameter hole runs laterally through the stem slightly forward of the stem/keel scarf, possibly for a line to haul the vessel out of the water. The stem is attached by eight one inch (2.54 cm) iron bolts to the apron and the keel. Three treenails inserted into the stem join it to the apron. The treenails used on the vessel were 1 inch (2.54 cm) in diameter, the only exception being the .5 inch (1.27 cm) diameter ones used to assemble the rudder. The fastening pattern shown on the stem-keel scarf is an alternating: 43 bolt/treenail/bolt/treenail pattern. There is a large iron stain on the bottom of the stem where the keel notched into it; what remains of the eroded end of the keel is covered with iron corrosion from the bolt used to fasten them together. 

Lower Apron 

 When combined, the lower and upper aprons have an overall length equaling 15 feet, 1 inch (4.83 m) starting near the upper tip of the stem and terminating, below the keelson, not far forward of the mast step. The lower apron is 7 feet, 8 inches (2.34 m) in length, 6 inches (15.24 cm) sided, and 5 inches (12.7 cm) molded at the butt of the upper and lower timbers. The lower apron then rises aft slightly over its first 13 inches (34.02 cm) to a molded height of 8 inches (20.32 cm). It retains this dimension until it butts into a notch on the bottom of the keelson at the lower apron’s after end. The apron itself is notched to fit over two of the floor timbers, frames one and two. Eleven other half frames abut each side of the apron. The fastening pattern on the apron shows that it was nailed and through-bolted with iron bolts to the keelson, floors, keel, and stem. The forward edge of the lower apron is bolted to the stem and the keel; where the keelson starts, on top of the aft end of the lower apron, the pattern (moving aft) shows a nail, a bolt, and then two through-floor bolts all driven through the top of the keelson. At the forward end of the lower apron there is a circular depression 10.5 inches (26.67 cm) in diameter with iron spikes on either side, suggesting that this may be the location of a post, known as a sampson post, that supported the bow sprit. 

Upper Apron 

Whether due to erosion or vandalism nothing currently remains of the upper 44 apron although it was present and documented in 1980. According to the drawings, and the remaining fastenings in the stem, it was probably 7 feet, 5 inches (2.26 m) in length, 3 by 5 inches (7.62 by 12.7 cm) molded, and 6 inches (15.24 cm) sided. The fastening pattern, and the remains of the fasteners, in the stem show that the upper apron was attached (starting where it abuts the lower apron) to the stem by a through bolt, two treenails, another through bolt, a spike, three treenails, two spikes (seemingly connected in the manner of a staple but could have been the result of corrosion), and a final treenail. Eleven fasteners were used: two one inch diameter (2.54 cm) through bolts, six 1 inch diameter (2.54 cm) treenails, and three spikes. 

Stern Post 

 The stern post (Figure 5) was fashioned from live oak. It is 7 feet, 9 inches (2.36 m) in length along its after face and 7 feet, 7 inches (2.3 m) along its forward face. The stern post has a 110 degree angle of rake. A 3 inch (7.62 cm) diameter hole runs from side to side through the top of the post. The stern post is molded 12 inches (30.48 cm) at the base and tapers to 9 inches (22.86 cm) at the top. The sided dimension is 6 inches (15.24 cm) throughout. The stern post tenon extends 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) beyond the bottom of the post, but seems to have lost roughly 1 inch (2.54 cm) of its depth, perhaps to erosion, because the mortise in the keel is 3.5 inches (8.89 cm) deep. The tenon, 5 inches (12.7 cm) in length and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm) wide, matches the mortise in length but not in width as the mortise was 3 inches wide. It is not clear whether the tenon was designed this way or if this discrepancy was caused by erosion, or by the conservation treatment that the stern post and rudder assembly underwent. According to Dr. Donny 45 L. Hamilton (personal communication 2004), post-conservation shrinkage is the most likely explanation, for no functional advantage can be found for the undersized tenon. When the stern post was recovered, it was placed in a Polyethylene glycol (PEG) conservation treatment along with the stern knee and the rudder assembly in 1980, where it remained until 1990. After treatment nothing remained of the two iron gudgeons other than rust stains left by the 2.5 inch (6.35 cm) wide iron straps used to attach them to the stern post. The straps had been both nailed and bolted in place. The pintles (shown in earlier drawings but missing after conservation) were attached to the rudder assembly by similar iron straps; each strap was long enough to cross two to three sections of the rudder blade and were either nailed or bolted into place. 

The stern post was riddled with 26 different fasteners of which there were several types. There were two different sizes of square nails, with heads of .33 inch (8.4 mm) and .25 inch (6.3 mm); three sizes of round iron spikes, with shafts of .5 inch (1.27 cm), 1 inch (2.54 cm), and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm); and there are also two sizes of treenails .5 inch (1.27 cm) in diameter, and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm.) in diameter. Nearly all of the fasteners entered from the front or the rear of the stern post except six of the nails holding the iron straps in place and two treenails. The two treenails were located 4 and 8 inches (10.16 and 20.32 cm) up from the bottom of the stern post. Their purpose has yet to be determined, but the bottom portion of the post also held two additional treenails running fore and aft, and three iron fasteners. These fasteners may have been necessary to secure the tenon (if the tenon actually fit) into a mortise cut into the bottom of the stern post. Of the other fasteners, four treenails and three through bolts were used to attach the stern knee to the stern post. The two through bolts at the top of the stern post were probably used to attach the post to the transom. 

One of the drawings from 1980 shows wooden fragments bolted to the forward face of the stern post that supports that theory. Unfortunately no portions of the upper stern exist any longer. 

Stern Post Knee 

The stern post knee was recovered and conserved in 1980. Its lower arm was 4 feet, 6 inches (1.36 m) long although only 3 feet, 9 inches (1.15 m) remains (the original length of the lower arm was determined by the gap left between the remaining end of the knee and the end of the keelson). The upper arm of the stern post knee measures 3 feet, 2.5 inches (97.79 cm) in length. Both arms are molded anywhere from 5 inches (12.7 cm) to 16 inches (40.64 cm), and are 6 inches (15.24 cm) sided. Planking rabbets were cut into each side of the stern knee; they enter from the deadwood forward and curve up the sides of the knee until they meet the forward corners of the stern post. The knee was attached to the stern post and the deadwood with three iron bolts. There are three transverse treenails in the lower arm of the stern post knee: one on the forward section and two adjacent to where the rabbet enters the knee. These treenails may have been used to secure the half frames that abutted the knee. 

Deadwood 

 The one-piece deadwood is 9 feet, 8 inches (2.95 m) in length, from 9 inches (22.86 cm) to 18 inches (45.72 cm) molded, and between 6 inches (15.24 cm) and 9 inches (22.86 cm) sided. It begins 10 feet, 5.5 inches (3.19 m) from the end of the keel; here it is molded and sided 9 inches (22.86 cm). It expands aft in the molded dimension 47 and narrows in the sided dimension until it butts against the stern post where the piece is 18 inches (45.72 cm) molded and 6 inches (15.24 cm) sided. It is through-bolted and treenailed to the keel from the stern post knee. The rabbets enter from the keel into the deadwood at its forward lower edges and curve up over the central third of the deadwood’s length to where they meet the stern knee. The aftermost floor timber is notched over the deadwood and eight half frames butt against each side of the timber. 

Frames 

 The framing of the Mepkin Abbey shipwreck is unusual in that there is no discernible pattern; the timbers are not consistently spaced along the keel, making the framing difficult to describe. There are 21 floor timbers and 40 known locations where half frames butt-join under the keelson (20 on each side), against the apron or deadwood. Only 28 of the half frames have survived, and over 200 of the individual futtocks, not counting hawse pieces, are missing. 

All of the floor timbers are of live oak. They are between 4 and 6 inches (10.16- 15.24 cm) molded and between 4 and 5 inches (10.16-12.7 cm) sided. They extend up to the turn of the bilge and were attached with three transverse treenails to the first futtocks. 

There are nine floors forward of the midship frame and 11 floors aft, for a total of 21 floors. There does not seem to be any consistent pattern associated with their positioning. However, the main cargo area is especially heavily constructed with ten floors located adjacent to, or between, the 8 feet, 2 inches (2.49 m) area where the keelson is notched to fit over the floors. It is unclear if this ‘lack of pattern’ was original construction or caused by extensive repairs. 

Two limber holes have been cut into each floor timber, with one on each side of the keel. They measure 1 inch (2.54 cm) high and 2 inches (5.08 cm) wide. They were roughly chiseled into the floors 5 inches (12.7 cm) away from the keel. The remaining cant frames, half frames, and first futtocks, also made of live oak, are 6 inches (15.24 cm) molded and between 4 and 5 inches (10.16-12.7 cm) sided. These would have had second futtocks attached in most cases, and each floor would have had first and second futtocks attached to it. All of the known futtocks were laid side by side against the floors and attached with transverse treenails but only 7 first futtocks, and 1 second futtock still exist. 

Keelson 

 The keelson is comprised of two straight timbers of southern yellow pine fitted together with a flat scarf and double-bolted 10 feet, 11 inches (3.32 m) aft of the keelson’s forward end. The scarf is directly abaft the single mast step. The forward timber is molded 5 inches (12.7 cm) and sided 6 inches (15.24 cm) at its forwardmost point and increases in dimensions over the first 2 feet, 7 inches (78.74 cm) to 7 inches (17.78 cm) molded and 10 inches (25.4 cm) sided. It continues to increase in molded dimension to 9 inches (22.86 cm) at the keelson scarf. It is a total of 10 feet, 11 inches (3.32 m) in length. The after keelson timber is 10 inches (25.4 cm) sided but is slightly higher, with a molded dimension of 9.5 inches (24.13 cm) at the scarf. This may have been an additional means of bracing the mast step located just forward of the scarf. The scarf is 18 inches (45.72 cm) long and tapers to a nib with a molded dimension of 6 inches (15.24 cm) on the forward timber while the aft timber tapers up to end with a 49 1 inch (2.54 cm) nib. The after keelson timber is 24 feet, 7 inches (7.51 m) in length and is consistently 10 inches (25.4 cm) sided until it reaches the deadwood, where it begins to taper to its final sided dimension of 6 inches (15.24 cm). The molded dimension of 9.5 inches (24.13 cm) continues to the point where the keelson notches into the deadwood, 5 feet, 5 inches (1.66 m) from the end of the keelson, and then maintains a molded dimension of 5 inches (12.7 cm) until it butt-joins the stern knee. There are five notches on the after keelson timber’s underside, where it increases 1 inch (2.54 cm) in the molded dimension and notches over four frames. The notches begin 4 feet, 9 inches (1.46 m) abaft of the scarf and end 3 feet, 11 inches (1.2 m) before the keelson notch over the deadwood. In the space of 8 feet, 3 inches (2.5 m) these five notches range in length from 7 inches (17.78 cm) to 12 inches (30.48 cm) and fit over the frames, interlocking the keelson and floors. The keelson is attached by 24 bolts that extend through the keelson, most of the floor timbers, and into the keel. Ten iron spikes were also used to secure the keelson to the frames. Three notches cut into the top of the keelson held stanchions over the main cargo area. The notches begin 11 feet, 6 inches (3.5 m) aft of the keelson’s forward end and are evenly spaced 7 feet (2.13 m) apart. The forwardmost notch, located above the keelson scarf, is 5.5 inches (14.04 cm) long, 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) wide, and only .5 inch (1.27 cm) deep. Erosion may have affected the depth of all three notches. 

The second notch, located amidship, is 5 inches (12.7 cm) long, 2 inches (5.08 cm) wide, and 2 inches (5.08) deep, while the aftermost notch is 5.5 inches (14.04 cm) long, 3 inches (7.62 cm) wide, and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm) deep. Nothing remains of the stanchions 50 themselves; they may have been of the same dimensions as the tenons or they may have been of heavier construction. 

Mast Step 

 The mast step, located slightly y less than one third of the vessel’s overall length abaft the stem, was carved from a single large piece of live oak. It is 5 feet, 7 inches (1.7 m) long, molded 14 inches (35.56 cm), and sided 10 inches (25.4 cm). It fitted laterally and straddles the keelson and two sister keelsons. This kind of transverse arrangement is called a ‘saddle’ mast step. The step, or mortise, on top of the timber was drilled with four auger holes and then chiseled out to be an opening 7 inches (17.78 cm) long, 12 inches (30.48 cm) wide, and 4 inches (10.16 cm) deep. There is a shallow auger hole on the port side of the mortise where the shipwright started to cut the mortise in the wrong place. There are no fastenings of any kind attached to the mast step. It was held in place by its notch over the keelson and sister keelsons as well as by two curved tongues of wood placed fore and aft against it. The tongues of wood that braced the mast step were still attached to the keelson in 1980, but by 2000 only the after tongue remained. The after tongue is 1 foot, 6.5 inches (46.99 cm) in length, between 5 and 7 inches (12.7-17.78 cm) molded, and 4 inches (10.16 cm) sided. The fore tongue was 14 inches (35.56 cm) in length, 5 inches (12.7 cm) molded, and 4 inches (10.16 cm) sided. Both arch up from the keelson to brace the step and, according to the 1980 field notes, were secured to the keelson with five iron bolts in each tongue. They were not attached to the step in any way but were part of an overall assembly that stepped and supported the single mast with the 51 assistance of the sister keelsons. Two sister keelsons are attached on either side of the keelson with iron bands. They start 7 feet, 6 inches (2.28 m) abaft the keelson’s forward end and are 3 feet, 4.5 inches (1.03 m) in length, 6 inches (15.24 cm) molded, and 5 inches (12.7 cm) sided. The remaining iron bands are 2 inches (5.08 cm) wide and are attached 3 inches (7.62 cm) from either end of each sister keelson timber. The sister keelsons’ tops are flush with the keelson, doubling the structural support for the saddle mast step located above them. This mast step is constructed similarly to that of the British Army sloop Boscawen (1759), which was built for service on Lake Champlain during the French and Indian War. Boscawen was abandoned after the war near Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain but was relocated and excavated in the early 1980s (Crisman 1988: 143-147). The 115 ton, 16-gun Boscawen was approximately 75 feet (22.86 m) in length and 25 feet (7.6 m) in beam, much larger than the Mepkin Abbey shipwreck.

Hull Planking 

Made of southern yellow pine, the hull planking was between 10 and 18 inches (25.4-45.72 cm) wide and approximately .75 to 1 inch (1.99 to 2.54 cm) thick. The hull was carvel planked. Ten strakes remained on the starboard side and seven on the port side in 1980, but only nine and six, respectively, were present in 2000. There were eight strakes of planking on each side of the bottom to the turn of the bilge. The remaining strakes were eroded and damaged at their ends, but six of them had lengths that extended as much as 12 inches (30.48 cm) beyond the end of the keel. The garboard strake is 52 slightly thicker than the rest of the planking, being 10 inches (25.4 cm) wide and 1.5 inches (3.81 cm) thick. A preliminary count of plank fastenings on exposed frame surfaces revealed 227 treenails and only 30 iron fastenings, suggesting that the planks were principally treenail fastened.

Ceiling Planking 

 Some of the ceiling planking still existed in 1980, but none existed by 2000. Fastenings in the tops of the frames indicate where the ceiling was attached; approximately 90% of these were treenails and only 10% metal fasteners. According to the 1980 data, the ceiling was 1 inch (2.54 cm) thick and 10 inches (25.4 cm) wide. It is not clear how far the ceiling extended up the sides of the hull. 

Rudder 

 The heavily constructed rudder blade (Figure 5) was 4 feet, 1.5 inches (1.26 m) wide at the bottom and 1 foot, 5 inches (43.18 cm) wide at the top. It was 6 inches (15.24 cm) thick and had an overall height of 5 feet, 4 inches (1.63 m). It was made of five pieces of wood edge-fastened together with .5 inch (1.27 cm) diameter treenails. It was also held together with four iron straps, which were between 3 and 4 inches (7.62- 10.16 cm) wide, two of which were pintle straps. The pintle straps were nailed into the wood with five square-headed iron nails per side. Two sizes of nails seem to predominate: .25 inch (6.35 mm) and .33 inch (8.38 mm). There is a 1 inch (1.27 cm) diameter hole centrally located 2 inches (5.08 cm) from the lower edge of the rudder blade. Ralph Wilbanks suggested the hole ‘was probably for a keep for the rudder to protect it from being lost if it became dislodged’ (156). Another suggestion, because of the low position of the hole, is that it was used to support the rudder while it was being mounted in the water. The rudder stock was constructed from two pieces of wood. These timbers are highly eroded but were connected with .4 inch (1.02 cm) square-headed iron bolts or spikes, and treenails. Iron-stained notches show where the two iron straps were used to hold the rudder blade and stock together. There are also iron stains remaining from the pintle straps. The rudder, rudder stock, stern knee, and stern post were all recovered in 1980 and conserved by the SCIAA team. Another piece, also labeled as rudder stock, was recovered as well but was not with the rest of the assemblage in 2000. It could possibly have fit between the two remaining pieces of stock, together making up the rudder post and securing the blade to the stern post. The resulting post would probably have been 8 feet, 3 inches (2.52 m) in height, 1 inch (2.54 cm) thick, and 6 inches (15.24 cm) wide. The 1980 report also mentions a small piece of wood concreted to the rudder that could have been a rudder stop, but it no longer exists; a rudder stop is used to keep the rudder from floating out of the gudgeons. . . .

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Three previously named vessels, excavated and studied in the coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia, are of similar size and age to the Mepkin Abbey shipwreck. They are: the Brown’s Ferry vessel, the Clydesdale Plantation sloop, and the Malcolm boat. This chapter will examine the three wrecks and compare them, including the locations when discovered, excavation dates, determined or believed dates of usage, hull dimensions, scantlings, construction methods, materials, propulsion, purpose, and areas of use. The goals of this analysis are to determine how these vessels compare to the Mepkin Abbey shipwreck. 

The Brown’s Ferry Vessel 

In 1976 a shipwreck was recovered at Brown’s Ferry on the Black River in Georgetown County, South Carolina (Figure 30). The fully laden vessel was carrying 25 tons (25,401.2 kg) of bricks when it sank and has been dated to the middle of the 18th century based on a limited number of recovered artifacts. With a length of 50 feet, 3 inches (15.32 m) and a beam of 14 feet, 2 inches (4.32 m), the ship had a length:beam ratio of 3.6:1; the maximum depth amidships was 4 feet (1.22 m) (Figure 31) (Amer and Hocker, 1995: 297). 

The vessel did not have a keel, but was fitted with a heavy pine keel plank (Figure 32) and was built in the bottom-based construction tradition in which the bottom of the vessel is the main structural component. The remaining timbers were fashioned from local woods as well: the frames and end posts were made of live oak, the planking of southern yellow pine, and the keelson of cypress. Treenails, iron nails, and 62 iron bolts were used for fasteners. The vessel had a small transom stern and carved into the keelson were two mast steps. In addition to sail, the ship was propelled by the oars and punting poles found with the wreck. The vessel has been described as the ‘shorthaul truck of her time’ (Steffy 1988: 124). It was intended for river use, and its heavy flat bottom would have enabled it to beach on the river banks to load and unload cargo. Such a vessel would also have been capable of short journeys in coastal waters and could even have been used to make trips to Charleston, approximately 75 miles (120.7 km) away from where the wreck was discovered. 

 The Clydesdale Plantation sloop 

The Clydesdale Plantation sloop was excavated in the Back River (a secondary channel of the Savannah River not far from Savannah, Georgia) in 1992 (Figure 33).  ‘The vessel is not easily dated, as it had been stripped and deliberately buried to stabilize a rice bank (levee), but it was probably buried sometime between 1780 and 1820’ (Amer and Hocker 1995: 299). The upper stem assembly and much of the port side were missing, but the starboard side was preserved nearly to the deck level amidships. The remains were sufficiently preserved to get an accurate idea of the vessel’s construction and use. With an original length of 43 feet, 9 inches (13.34 m) and a beam of 15 feet, 5 inches (4.7 m), the ship has a length:beam ratio of 2.84:1. The ship would have had a maximum depth of 6 feet, 3 inches (1.9 m) amidships and would have held between 20 and 25 tons (20,320.9-25,401.2 kg) of cargo. Its construction began with a deep and heavy keel of yellow pine (Figure 34). The stern post, stem, apron, frames, and futtocks were all made of live oak. Like the keel, the keelson, planking, and ceiling planking were made of pine (Amer and Hocker 1995: 299). Fasteners used included iron nails, spikes and bolts, and wooden treenails. The shipwreck’s principle excavator, Fred Hocker, found …the most remarkable feature of construction [to be] in the frames. Unlike most other Western vessels of the post-medieval period, in which each floor timber (the central member of the frame) is associated with two or more futtocks fastened to or at least set against the floor timber, the Clydesdale vessel has frames almost identical to those of an ancient Greek or Roman ship. The live oak frame components are separate and evenly spaced, so that floor timbers fastened to the keel alternate with half-frames that run from the garboard to the deck. Futtocks in line with the floor timbers continue up to the deck as well. The bulwarks are supported by short, separate top timbers set between the halfframes and futtocks. None of these timbers is attached to any other. The only other vessel in North America framed in a similar manner is the Boscawen, a Royal Navy sloop built on Lake Champlain in 1759, although the naval sloop includes several complete ‘made’ frames used to define the shape of the hull. (Hocker 1992: 16)

There was a transom stern (Figure 35). A single mast, set forward of amidships, likely supported a sloop rig (sloop rigs were common for ships of this size in 18th and 19th centuries in the Carolinas). Amer and Hocker (1995: 30) believe that the Clydesdale Plantation sloop was ‘a fast, powerful sailing vessel with relatively little cargo capacity.’ While the hold was constructed tightly enough to have carried rice (tight in this case means waterproof), it is doubtful this was its primary purpose, as the vessel would have been better suited to the work of a pilot vessel, taking passengers between Charleston and Savannah, or even to trade as far away as the West Indies or Bermuda. It would have handled well in deep water with its heavy keel, sharp entrance, noticeable deadrise, and long fine run (Amer and Hocker 1995: 299), yet it was small enough to travel the coastal rivers around Savannah.

The Malcolm boat 

 The Malcolm boat was excavated in the Ashley River outside of Charleston, South Carolina in 1992 (Figure 28). ‘All of the artifacts recovered can be dated to a period roughly encompassing the last quarter of the 18th century and the first quarter of the 19th century’ (Amer, 1993: 56). The boat is believed to have had a lengthy career prior to being stripped and abandoned on the bank of the river. With a length of 41 feet, 10 inches (12.75 m) and a beam of 11 feet, 9 inches (3.58 m), it had a 3.56:1 length:beam ratio. The depth of hold was 4 feet, 11 inches (1.5 m) and the vessel would have had a displacement of about 24 tons (24,385.1 kg). 

Its construction employed local woods: the keel was of southern yellow pine, as were the seemingly reused ceiling planking and some of the hull planking. The garboard planks were made of cypress, the end posts were of live oak, and the frames and futtocks of both live and white oak. Fastenings included iron bolts and nails, as well as wooden treenails. The pine keelson was of substantial size and was notched over and fastened to each frame. Two rectangular mast steps were carved into the keelson: one located above the midship frame (approximately one third of the vessel’s length abaft the stem) and the other step, which was partially plugged, was set further aft, yet still in the forward half of the ship (Figure 36). Amer and Hocker describe the boat as being ‘designed for strength and with the ability to carry heavy loads’ (1995: 300). They also felt that ‘the transom stern would have enhanced the vessel’s cargo-carrying capacity and seaworthiness for offshore voyages’ (Figure 37). 

The Malcolm boat would have been suited to both offshore and riverine usage, and the reconstruction drawings by William Judd show a fine craft that was well made, functional, and aesthetically pleasing (Figure 38). 

Bibliography SC Maritime History

The ship St. Helena was built by Robert Watts in Beaufort, South Carolina.  It was “said to be the best Ship ever built in this Province.

Shipyards and European Shipbuilders in SouthCarolina (Late 1600s to 1800)

By Lynn Harris 

 As soon as the early Carolina colonists cleared their land and built their homes, they undoubtedly turned back to the sea and constructed watercraft. The rivers and creeks of what was to become known as the Carolina Lowcountry provided ready-made highways for the colonists, and they needed a variety of watercraft to carry on the business of establishing a new colony. They needed vessels to visit their neighbors, to trade with the friendly natives who inhabited the region, to carry goods from a central landing place to their respective homes, and (not least of all) to explore their new world. Fortunately, any colonist with the tools and knowledge to build a house could build a boat to suit almost any purpose.

 A Slow Beginning 

 In a letter written in 1680, Maurice Mathews, one of the colony's original settlers and eventually its surveyor-general and Commissioner to the Indians, noted that "Ther [e]have been severall vessells built here, and there are now 3 or 4 upon the Stocks.” This is perhaps the first written record of boat building in Carolina and probably refers to "vessells" capable of at least coastal trading. The myriad amount and variety of small skiffs, launches, barges, boats, and canoes needed by the colonists would hardly be worth mentioning. More evidence of early shipbuilding in the colony comes from the ship registers. Under English law, vessels used for inter-colonial or trans-oceanic trading were required to be registered. Few of these records remain. However, dispersed amongst the colony's early records of deeds, inventories, bills of sale, and wills are several registers for the year 1698. Of these fifteen remaining registers, only four are for vessels built in "Carolina.” These are the 30-ton sloop Ruby and the 50-ton sloop Joseph both built in 1696, the 30- ton brigantine Sea Flower built in 1697, and the 30-ton sloop Dorothy & Ann built in 1698. There are other indications that the shipbuilding industry in South Carolina got off to a slow start. In 1708, Governor Nathaniel Johnson reported to the Board of Trade in London that "There are not above ten or twelve sail of ships or other vessells belonging to this province about half of which number only were built here besides a ship or sloop now on the stocks near launching. 

In 1719, Governor Robert Johnson reported that "Wee are come to no great matter of [ship]building here for want of persons who undertake it tho no country in the world is [as] plentifully supplyed with timber for that purpose and [so] well stored with convenient rivers . . ." He notes that of the twenty or so vessels belonging to the port, "some" were built here. 

Largest Manufacturing Industry 

 As the colony grew and began to thrive so did the boat and ship building industries. While not comparable with the shipbuilding activities of the northern colonies, shipbuilding became South Carolina's largest manufacturing industry. And just as important, was its impact on the local economy. In addition to shipwrights, the construction of a vessel needed the services of joiners, coopers, blacksmiths, timber merchants, painters, chandlers, glaziers, carvers, plumbers, sailmakers, blockmakers, caulkers, and oarmakers among others. 

 The extant ship registers show that between 1735 and 1775 more than 300 ocean-going and coastal cargo vessels, ranging from five to 280 tons burthen, were built by South Carolina shipbuilders. This included ships, snows, brigantines, schooners, and sloops. These names referred to the vessel's rig, that is its mast and sail arrangement, and vessels were seldom mentioned without accompanying it with its type. This preoccupation with a vessel's rig is understandable. 

Denoting the rig distinguishes the schooner Betsy, from the brigantine Betsy, or the sloop Betsy. Even more, those tall wooden masts and billowing sails of the various rigs were easily its most recognizable feature and the first part of a vessel that appeared as it approached over the horizon. Undoubtedly, Carolina-built vessels were quite similar in most ways to those being built in Britain and the other colonies. The wide, rounded hull-shape of the oceangoing cargo carrier, with its blunt bow and tapering stern at the waterline -- meant to imitate the shape of a duck gliding through water -- and square stern cabin, had become, like the rigs themselves, fairly standard and widely copied by shipbuilders after centuries of development, innovation, and imitation. Since many of the shipwrights of colonial South Carolina were trained in the best English shipyards or in other parts of America, this is hardly surprising. 

John Rose, the Hobcaw shipbuilder, had learned his trade on the Thames at the Deptford Naval Yard. His partner, James Stewart, had apprenticed at the Woolrich Naval Yard, also on the Thames, and many of the other prominent Carolina shipbuilders had learned the art of shipbuilding before arriving in the colony. Georgetown shipwright Benjamin Darling had come to Carolina from New England. Charles Minors who built vessels in Little River came from Bermuda, while Robert Watts who set up his shipbuilding business at the remote Bloody Point on Daufuskie Island, where he built the 170-ton ship St. Helena in 1766 and the 260-ton ship Friendship in 1771, had come to South Carolina from Philadelphia. 

Nevertheless it would be hard to imagine that local shipwrights and boatbuilders weren't being influenced by local conditions and preferences and modifying the basic designs so that their vessels accommodated the needs of their customers. Ships and Schooners For evidence of ship design meeting environmental conditions and customer’s needs, we turn again to the available ship registers. They show that the Carolina-built, shiprigged vessel was, in general, of moderate size, yet larger than ships being built in the other shipbuilding colonies. South Carolina shipwrights were certainly able to build large ocean-going ships. The 280-ton ship Queen Charlotte, built in 1764 by John Emrie, and Occasional Maritime Research Papers Maritime Research Division, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, USC the 260-ton ship Atlantic, built at Port Royal in 1773, are two examples. However, shiprigged vessels built in South Carolina during this time averaged 180 tons. 

A ship in the 150- to 200-ton range seems almost the unanimous choice of Carolina shipowners, with more than half of those built in South Carolina in that range. While these ships were of a rather moderate size, Carolina shipwrights turned out ships that were on the average 40 percent larger than those being produced in other colonies. From available port records we find that ships built in the other colonies averaged only about 130 tons burthen. 

Perhaps the epitome of the South Carolina-built ship was the Heart of Oak, built at the Hobcaw yard of John Rose in 1763. Not only did its180-ton size prove typical of the size of locally built ships, but the quality of its workmanship would be proven over a successful career spanning more than 10 years. The Heart of Oak' s illustrious career began almost immediately after her launching. The S.C. Gazette for 21 May 1763 reported that "The fine new ship Heart-of-Oak, commanded by Capt. Henry Gunn, lately built by Mr. John Rose at Hobcaw, came down (to town) two days ago, completely fitted, and . . . 'tis thought she will carry 1100 barrels of rice, be very buoyant, and of an easy draught.” 

An "easy draught" in 1763 could be considerable. Lloyd's Register for 1764 lists her as having a draught of 14 feet fully loaded. During the colonial period, it was generally accepted that at low tide only 12 feet of water covered the deepest channel through the offshore bar, and in 1748, Governor James Glen noted, "Charles-Town Harbour is fit for all Vessels which do not exceed fifteen feet draught.” This meant that the Heart of Oak, with its "easy draught," had to be careful when it crossed the bar fully loaded. 

Rose was a passenger on the Heart of Oak' s maiden voyage when it sailed for Cowes, England on 22 June 1763. He was traveling to England in an attempt to recruit shipwrights to come to Carolina. There can be little doubt that he used the Heart of Oak as an example of the excellent shipbuilding materials and craftsmanship available in Carolina. He returned in the Heart of Oak in February 1764. His efforts were considered a failure. In April 1763, when the Heart of Oak was registered, John Rose listed himself as sole owner; however, by June of 1766 Henry Laurens, who owned one forth of the ship, valued his one-quarter interest in the Heart of Oak at £4,000. This sum can perhaps be put into perspective by noting that at the same time he valued Mepkin Plantation, his 3,000- acre property on the Cooper River, at £7,000. One thing is certain - Carolinians preferred schooners. 

South Carolina shipwrights built more schooners than all other types of vessels put together. The ship registers indicate that the two-masted fore-and aft-rigged schooner, ideal for coastal trading vessels, averaged about 20 tons burthen and accounted for about 80 percent of the registered South Carolina-built vessels. 

This appears somewhat astonishing, especially when compared to records from the other colonies where the schooner accounted for only about 25 percent of the vessels built. Elsewhere in the American colonies, the one-masted sloop rig, such as the remains of the Malcolm Boat appears to be, was the most popular rig, accounting for roughly one-third of all vessels registered in the colonies. This penchant for schooners is perhaps a result of the coastal trade that formed a large part of the commerce in and out of Charleston. In addition to a lively Atlantic and Caribbean trade, Carolinians carried on an extensive and active coastal trade. 

Rice, indigo, lumber, naval stores, and the other products of the coastal plantations and settlements had to be transported to Charleston for trans-shipment to England and elsewhere. And, the products from England and Europe that arrived in Charleston had to be distributed back to these colonists who were starved for manufactured goods of all kinds. This coastal trade required a small, fast, shallow-draft vessel that was maneuverable enough to sail amongst the coast's sea island. The small coasting schooner being built by Carolina shipbuilders fit the bill perfectly. 

Looking at the records of port arrivals and departures for a one year period from June 1765 to June 1766, we find the majority of cruises for schooners involved short coastal runs while sloops were being used for short ocean cruises, such as those to the Caribbean and Bermuda. 

Shipyards and Shipwrights 

 As the colonists spread out along the waterways so did the shipbuilding efforts. The registers list construction sites along most of South Carolina's rivers -- at places such as Pon Pon, Dorchester, Bull's Island, Dewees Island, Wadmalaw, Combahee, and Pocotaligo. But the major shipbuilding areas centered around Charleston, Beaufort, and Georgetown. Most shipbuilding in Charleston took place outside the city proper. The three areas near town that became shipbuilding centers were James Island, Shipyard Creek, and Hobcaw. 

Although no shipyard sites have been located on James Island, the colonial ship registers indicate a good amount of shipbuilding on the island. Between 1735 and 1772, more than thirty vessels list James Island as their place of construction in the ship registers. This includes the 130-ton ship Charming Nancy, built in 1752 for Charleston merchants Thomas Smith Sr. and Benjamin Smith. Shipyard Creek, now part of the naval base near Charleston, was another shipbuilding site during the colonial period (Smith 1988: 50). Many of the ships listing Charleston as their place of construction in the ship registers were probably built on Shipyard Creek. During the last half of the Eighteenth century, Hobcaw Creek off the Wando River became the colony's largest shipbuilding center, boasting as many as three commercial shipyards in the immediate vicinity. The largest shipyard in the Hobcaw area, indeed in all of colonial South Carolina, was the one started on the south side of the creek in 1753 by Scottish shipwrights John Rose and James Stewart. After making a considerable fortune, Rose sold the yard in 1769 to two other Scottish shipwrights, William Begbie and Daniel Manson. In 1778, Paul Pritchard bought the property and changed its name to Pritchard's Shipyard. 

During the Revolution, the South Carolina Navy Board bought control of the yard and used it to refit vessels of the South Carolina Navy. After the Revolution, ownership of the yard reverted to Pritchard, and the property stayed in the Pritchard family until 1831. Another shipwright who owned a yard in the vicinity of Hobcaw Creek during South Carolina's colonial period was Capt. Clement Lempriere. The exact location of his yard is unknown, but in all likelihood, it was near or at Remly Point. A 1786 plat of the Hobcaw Creek area reveals the site of the shipyard of David Linn located on the north side of the creek. Linn had been a shipbuilder in Charleston as early as 1744 and purchased the Hobcaw property in 1759. Georgetown and Beaufort also developed shipbuilding industries during the colonial period. The South Carolina ship registers indicate Georgetown had a thriving shipbuilding industry from 1740 to about 1760. More than 30 vessels list Georgetown as the site of construction during this period including the 180-ton ship Francis, built in 1751. Benjamin Darling probably built the Francis since his was the largest shipyard in Georgetown during this period. 

 The South Carolina Gazette for 28 September 1765 notes that "within a month past, no less than three scooners [sic] have been launch'd at and near the town of Beaufort, one built by Mr. Watts, one by Mr. Stone, and one by Mr. Lawrence; besides which, a pink stern ship, built by Mr. Black, will be ready to launch there next Monday, and very soon after, another scooner, built by Mr. Taylor, one by Mr. Miller, and one by Mr. Toping; there is also on the stocks, and in great forwardness, a ship of three hundred tons, building by Mr. Emrie; and the following contracted for, to be built at the same place, viz, a ship of 250 tons, and a large scooner, by Mr. Black; another large ship and a scooner by Mr. Watts; two large scooners, by Mr. Lawrence, and on by Mr. Stone." 

The ship registers verify this abundance of shipbuilding and indicate a proliferation of construction activity between 1765 and 1774. It would be wrong to assume that all this shipbuilding was taking place at large commercial shipyards. Shipyards during this period ranged from the well-established yard such as John Rose's on Hobcaw which employed perhaps 20 persons building large ships to the "shade tree" variety were one or two persons built small sloops and schooners without any help and worked elsewhere between construction jobs. And this doesn't include the handyman who built a canoe or small sailing skiff for his own personal use. 

 While specific records concerning small boat building do not exist, the newspapers of the time are filled with advertisements indicating a wide variety of locally made watercraft for sale. These small craft virtually littered the local waterways. In 1751, Governor James Glen noted that "Cooper River appears sometimes a kind of floating market, and we have numbers of canoes, boats and pettiaguas that ply incessantly, bringing down the country produce to town, and returning with such necessary as are wanted by the planters". 

Live Oak, Yellow Pine, and Long Life 

The early boatbuilders as well as shipwrights found local woods excellent building materials. The massive, naturally-curved live oak for the vessel's main timbers, and the tall, yellow pines and for planking and decking were as ideally suited for the small skiff as for the large three-masted ship. The Gazette for 28 September 1765, after noting the vessels presently being built by Carolina shipwrights, claims that "as soon as the superiority of our Live-Oak Timber and Yellow Pine Plank, to the timber and plank of the Occasional Maritime Research Papers Maritime Research Division, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, USC Northern colonies, becomes more generally known, 'tis not to be doubted, that this province may vie with any of them in that valuable branch of business . . ." And, six years later, the Gazette for 8 August 1771 reports that there had been several recent orders for Carolina-built ships from England as "Proof that the Goodness of Vessels built here, and the superior Quality of our Live-Oak Timber to any Wood in America for Ship-Building, is at length acknowledged." Of course, the Gazette's enthusiasm may have been somewhat of an eighteenth century public relations effort, but there were others with no, or at least less visible, ulterior motives who praised Carolina-built vessels. Henry Laurens, the owner of many vessels built both in South Carolina and elsewhere, was one who promoted the superiority of the Carolina vessels and the skill of local shipwrights. In 1765 while discussing the cost of shipbuilding in Carolina with William Fisher, a Philadelphia shipowner, he notes, "The difference in the Cost of our Carolina built Vessels is not the great objection to building here. That is made up in the different qualities of the Vessels when built or some people think so.” He adds that a vessel built in Philadelphia "would not be worth half as much (the hull of her) as one built of our Live Oak & Pine . . .” 

Writing to his brother James from England in 1774 in reference to acting as an agent in having a ship made in Carolina for a Bristol mercantile firm, he admits his hope that a Carolina-built ship on the Thames would assure that "our Ships built of Live Oak & Pine will acquire the Character & Credit which they truly Merit." Live oak and pine construction, along with the other popular shipbuilding timbers, were frequent advertising points in a vessel's sale. On 21 May1754, the South Carolina Gazette ran a typical ad of this sort. It was for the sale of a schooner that would carry 95 to 100 barrels of rice. The ad notes that the vessel is "extraordinary well built, live oak and red cedar timber, with two streaks of white oak plank under her bends, the rest yellow pine.” Live oak was an obvious and common choice for shipbuilding, yet cedar, although immensely less abundant, was also a favorite shipbuilding material due to its ability to resist the infamous teredo worm, also known as the shipworm. 

In 1779 when the new state sought to have a 42-foot pilot boat made the specifications recommended "the whole of the frame Except the flore [floor] Timbers be of Ceadar." These woods also made for vessels with long lives. At a time when the average life expectancy of a wooden vessel was about fifteen years, Carolina-built ships boasted usual lives of twenty to thirty years. In 1766, the 20-ton schooner Queenley was registered to trade between Carolina and Georgia. The Queenley was built in 1739 in South Carolina, twenty-seven years earlier. When the 15-ton schooner Friendship was registered for trade in 1773, it was already twenty-eight years old, having been built at Hobcaw in 1745. The South Carolina Gazette ran a story in 1773 that the aptly named 125-ton ship, Live Oak, was "constantly employed in the Trade between this Port and Europe." The Live Oak had been built on James Island twenty-four years earlier. This quality of Southern timber even reached the ears of Alexander Hamilton who wrote in his Federalist Papers "The difference in the duration of the ships of which the navy might be composed, if chiefly constructed of Southern wood, would be of signal importance . . . " 

 USS John Adams The high point of South Carolina wooden shipbuilding occurred on 5 June 1799 with the launching of the 550-ton frigate John Adams at the Paul Pritchard Shipyard on Shipyard Creek. The John Adams carried twenty-six 12-pound cannons and six 24-pound carronades making her the first U.S. Navy vessel to be armed with carronades. She was built with a variety of native South Carolina woods. The floor timbers and futtocks were of live oak. The upper timbers were of cedar. The keel and keelson were of Carolina pine while the masts and spars were of long-leaf pine. The deck beams were hewn from yellow pine logs cut along the Edisto River. In 1803, she saw action off Tripoli against the Barbary Powers. During the War of 1812, she spent most of her time blockaded in New York harbor. In 1863, at the age of sixty-four, she was ordered to join the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron off South Carolina. Her long and illustrious career ended in 1867 when she was sold out of the Navy and sent to the breaker's yard. Decline of Wooden Ships The wooden shipbuilding industry declined during the first half of the nineteenth century. This was due to a general economic decline in the state and, of course, the development of steamships and steel-hulled vessels. However, small wooden vessels -- yachts, fishing boats, pilot boats, barges, canoes, skiffs, launches, dugouts, batteaux, etc. - - were still being constructed and used on the river and coastal waterways of this state. This small boat industry continued into the twentieth century. 

References 

Albion, Robert Greenhalgh. 1926 Forests And Sea Power: The Timber Problem of The Royal Navy 1652-1862. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Charleston County Probate Court Records (CCPCR), Wills and Miscellaneous Records, Vol. 54 (1694-1704). 

Charleston County Register of Mesne Conveyance Records (CCRMCR). Coker, P. C., III 1987 

Charleston's Maritime Heritage, 1670-1865. Charleston:  

Crowse, Converse D. 1984 "Shipowning and Shipbuilding in Colonial South Carolina: An Overview.” The American Neptune 44, no 4 (Fall 1984): 221-244. Dunne, W.M.P. 1987 

"The South Carolina Frigate: A History of the U.S. Ship John Adams." The American Neptune 47, no. 1 (Winter 1987): 22-32. Occasional Maritime Research Papers Maritime Research Division, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, USC 

Fleetwood, Rusty. 1982 Tidecraft: The boats of lower South Carolina & Georgia. Savannah, Ga.: Coastal Heritage Society. Fraser, Walter J., Jr. 1976 Patriots, Pistols and Petticoats. Charleston: Charleston County Bicentennial Committee. 

Goldenberg, Joseph A. 1976 Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville, Va.: The University Press of Virginia. Hamilton, Alexander. 1941 "Federalist Papers, No. 11." The Federalist. New York The Modern Library. Labaree, Leonard Woods. 1967 Royal Instructions to British Colonial Governors, 1670 - 1776. New York: Octagon Books. Laurens, Henry 1970The Papers of Henry Laurens, Volume Two: Nov. 1, 1765 - Dec. 31,1758. Edited by Philip M. Hamer and George C. Rogers Jr. Columbia: USC Press. 1972 The Papers of Henry Laurens, Volume Three: Jan. 1, 1759 - Aug. 31, 1763. Edited by Philip M. Hamer and George C. Rogers Jr. Columbia: USC Press. 1974 The Papers of Henry Laurens, Volume Four: Sept. 1, 1763 - Aug. 31,1765. Edited by George C. Rogers Jr. Columbia: USC Press. 1978 The Papers of Henry Laurens, Volume Six: Aug. 1, 1768 - July 31,1769. Edited by George C. Rogers Jr. and David R. Chesnutt. Columbia: USC Press. 1979 The Papers of Henry Laurens, Volume Seven: Aug. 1, 1769 - Oct. 9, 1771. Edited by George C. Rogers Jr. and David R. Chesnutt. Columbia: USC Press. 1981 The Papers of Henry Laurens, Volume Nine: April 19, 1773 - Dec. 12, 1774. Edited by George C. Rogers Jr. and David R. Chesnutt. Columbia: USC Press. Lloyd's Register of Shipping 1764 London: Reprinted by The Gregg Press Ltd. Mathews, Maurice. 1954 "A Contemporary View of Carolina in 1680." South Carolina Historical Magazine 55, no. 3 (July 1954): 153-159. Occasional Maritime Research Papers Maritime Research Division, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, USC Merrens, H. Roy, ed. 1977 The Colonial South Carolina Scene - Contemporary Views, 1697-1774. Columbia: USC Press. Milling, Chapman J., ed. 1951 Colonial South Carolina: Two Contemporary Descriptions by Governor James Glen and Doctor George Milligen Johnston. Columbia: USC Press. Olsberg, Nicholas. 1973 "Ship Registers in the South Carolina Archives, 1734 - 1780." South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine 74, no. 4 (October 1973): 189-299. Rogers, George C., Jr. 1970 The History of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Columbia: USC Press. 1980 Charleston in the Age of the Pinckneys. Columbia: USC Press. Salley, A.S., Jr. 1912 Journal of the Commissioners of the Navy of South Carolina, October 9, 1776 - March 1, 1779. Columbia: The Historical Commission of South Carolina. 1913 Journal of the Commissioners of the Navy of South Carolina, July 22, 1779 - March 23, 1780. Columbia: The Historical Commission of South Carolina. Smelser, Marhsall, and William I. Davisson. 1973 "The Longevity of Colonial Ships." The American Neptune 33, no. 1 (January 1973): 17-19. Smith, H.A.M. 1988 Rivers and Regions of Early South Carolina. Spartanburg: The Reprint Co. South Carolina Gazette Various editions Uhlendorf, Bernard A., trans. and ed. 1938 The Siege of Charleston. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Weir, Robert M. 1983 Colonial South Carolina. Millwood, N.Y.: KTO Press. 

South Carolina Shipbuilding in the Age of Sail - Part 1 

As soon as the early Carolina colonists cleared their land and built their homes they undoubtedly turned back to the sea and constructed water craft The rivers and creeks of what was to became known as the Carolina Lowcountry provided ready-made highways for the colonists, and they needed a variety of watercraft to carry on the business of establishing a new colony. They needed vessels to visi t their neighbors, to trade with the friendly natives who inhabited the region, to carry goods from a central landing place to their respective homes, and (not least of all) to explore their new world. Fortunately, any colonist with the tools and knowledge to build a house could build a boat to suit almost any purpose. A Slow Beginnu.g 

Ina letter written in 1680, Maurice Mathews, one of the colony's original settlers and eventually its surveyorgeneral and Commissioner to the Indians, noted that "Tber{ e ] have been severall vessells built here, and there are now 3 or 4 upon the Stocks." This is perhaps the first written record of boatbuilding in Carolina and probably refers to "vessells" capable of at least coastal trading. The myriad amount and variety of small skiffs, launches, barges, boats, and canoes needed by the colonists would hardly be worth mentioning. More evidence of early shipbuilding in the colony comes from the ship registers. Under English law, vessels used for intercolonial or trans-oceanic trading were required to be registered. Few of these records remain. However, dispersed amongst the colony's early records of deeds, inventories, bills of sale, and wills are several registers for the year 1698. Of these fifteen remaining registers, only four are for vessels built in "Carolina." These are the 3O-ton sloop Ruby and the 50-ton sloop Joseph both built in 1696, the 3O-ton brigantine Sea Flower built in 1697, and the 3D-ton sloop Dorothy & Ann built in 1698. 1bere are other indications that the shipbuiling industry in South Carolina got off to a slow start. In 1708, Governor Nathaniel Johnson reported to the Board of Trade in London that "There are not above ten or twelve sail of ships or other vessells belonging to this province about half of which number only were built here besides a ship or sloop now on the stocks near launching. " In1719, Governor Robert Johnson reported that "Wee are come to no great matter of [ship ]building here for want of persons who undertake it tho no country in the world is [as] plentifully supplyed with timber for that purpose and [so] well stored with convenient rivers ... " 

He notes that ofthe twenty or so vessels belonging to the port, "some" were built here. Largest Maufacturing Industry As the colony grew and began to thrive so did the boat and ship building industries. While not comparable with the shipbuilding activities of the northern colonies, shipbuilding became South Carolina's largest manufacturing industry. And just as important, was its impact on the local economy. In addition to shipwrights, the construction of a vessel needed the services of joiners, coopers, blacksmiths, timber merchants, painters, chandlers, glaziers, carvers, plumbers, sailmakers, blockmakers, caulkers, and oarmakers among others. The extant ship registers show that between 1735 and 1775 more than 300 ocean-going and coastal cargo vessels, ranging from five to 280 tons burthen, were built by South Carolina shipbuilders. This included ships, snows, brigantines, schooners, and sloops. 

These names referred to the vessel's rig, that is its mast and sail arrangement, and vessels were seldom mentioned without accompanying it with its type. This preoccupation with a vessel's rig is understandable. Denoting the rig distinguishes the schooner Betsy, from the brigantine Betsy, or the sloop Betsy. Even more, those tall wooden masts and billowing sails of the various rigs were easily its most recognizable feature and the first part of a vessel that appeared as it approached over the horizon.

Undoubtedly, Carolina-built vessels were quite similar in most ways to those being built in Britain and the other colonies. The wide, rounded hull-shape of the oceangoing cargo carrier, with its blunt bow and tapering stem at the waterline - meant to imitate the shape of a duck gliding through water - and square stem cabin, had become, like the rigs themselves, fairly standard and widely copied by shipbuilders after centuries of development, innovation, and imitation. Since many of the shipwrights of colonial South Carolina were trained in the best English shipyards or in other parts of America, this is hardly surprising. John Rose, the Hobcaw shipbuilder, had learned his trade on the Thames at the Deptford Naval Yard. His partner, James Stewart, had apprenticed at the Woolrich Naval Yard, also on the Thames, and many of the other prominent Carolina shipbuilders had learned the art of shipbuilding before arriving in the colony. Georgetown shipwright Benjamin Darling had come to Carolina from New England. Charles Minors who built vessels in Little River came from Bermuda, while Robert Watts who set up his shipbuilding business at the remote Bloody Point on Daufuskie Island, where he built the 170-ton ship St Helena in 1766 and the 260-ton ship Friendship in 1771, had come to South Carolina from Philadelphia.

South Carolina Shipbuilding in the Age of Sail - Part 2 

How did the vessels built by South Carolina shipwrights compare with those being built elsewhere? It would be hard to imagine that local shipwrights and boatbuilders weren't being influenced by local conditions and preferences and modifying the basic designs so that their vessels accommodated the needs of their customers. .For evidence of this we tum again to the available ship registers. 

They show that the Carolina-built, ship-rigged (three masted) vessel was, in general, of moderate size, yet larger than ships being built in the other shipbuilding colonies. South Carolina shipwright were certainly able to build large ocean-going ships. The 280-ton ship Queen Charlotte, built in 1764 by John Emrie, and the 260- ton ship Atlantic, built at Port Royal in 1773, are two examples. However, ship-rigged vessels built in South Carolina during this time avemged 180 tons. A ship in the 150- to 200-ton range seems almost the unanimous choice of Carolina shipowners, with more than half of those built in South Carolina in that range. While these ships were of rather modemte size, it may come as a surprise that Carolina shipwright turned out ships that were on the avemge forty percent larger than those being produced in other colonies. From available port records we find that ships built in the other colonies avemged only about 130 tons burthen. 

Perhaps the epitome of the South Carolina-built ship was the Heart of Oak, built at the Hobcaw yard of John Rose in 1763. Not only did itsl80-ton size prove typical of the size of locally-built ships, but the quality of its workmanship would be proven over a successful career spanning more than ten years. The Heart of Oak's illustrious career began almost immediately after her launching. The S.C. Gazette for 21 May 1763 reported that "The fine new ship Heart-of-Oak, commanded by Capt. Henry Gunn, lately built by Mr. John Rose at Hobcaw, came down (to town) two days ago, completely fitted, and ... 'tis thought she will carry 1100 barrels of rice, be very buoyant, and of an easy draught." An "easy dmught" in 1763 could be considemble. Lloyd's Register for 1764 lists her as having a draught of fourteen feet when fully looded. During the colonial period it was genemlly accepted that at low tide only twelve feet of water covered the deepest channel through the offshore bar, and in 1748, Governor James Glen noted that "Charles-Town Harbour is fit for all Vessels which do not exceed fifteen feet draught." This meant that the Heart of Oak, with its "easy draught," had to be careful indeed when it crossed the bar fully loaded. 

Rose was a passenger on the Heart of Oak's maiden voyage when it sailed for Cowes on 22 June 1763. He was travelling to England in an attempt to recruit shipwrights to come to Carolina. There can be little doubt that he used the Heart of Oak as an example of the excellent shipbuilding materials and craftsmanship available in Carolina. He returned in the Heart of Oak in February 1764. His efforts were considered a failure. In April 1763, when the Heart of Oak was registered, John Rose listed himself as sole owner, however, by June of that year one fourth of the ship was owned by Henry Laurens who, in 1766, valued his one-quarter interest in the Heart ofOsk at £4,000. This sum can perhaps be put into perspective by noting that at the same time he valued Mepkin Plantation, his 3,000 acre property on the C0oper River, at £7,000.

One thing is certain, Carolinians had a preference for schooners. South Carolina shipwrights built more schooners than all other types of vessels put together. The ship registers indicate that the two masted fore-and-aftrigged schooner, ideal for coastal trading vessels, averaged about twenty tons burthen and accounted for about eighty percent of the registered South Carolina-built vessels. This appears somewhat astonishing, especially when compared to records from the other colonies where the schooner accounted for only about twentyfive percent of the vessels built. Elsewhere in the American colonies, the one-masted sloop rig was the most popular rig, accounting for roughly one-third of all vessels registered in the colonies. This penchant for schooners is pemaps a result of the coastal trade which fonned a large part of the commerce in and out of Charleston. 

In addition to a lively Atlantic and Caribbean trade, Carolinians carried on an extensive and active coastal trade. Rice, indigo, lumber, naval stores, and the other products of the coastal plantations and settlements had to be trasported to Charleston for transshipment to England and elsewhere. And, the products from England and Europe that arrived in Charleston had to be distributed back to these colo- . nists who were staIved for manufactured goods of all kinds. This coastal trade required small, fast, shallow-draft vessels that were maneuverable enough to sail amongst the coast's sea islands. The small coasting schooners being built by Carolina shipbuilders fit the bill perfectly. 

Looking at the records of port arrivals and departures for a one year period from June 1765 to June 1766, we find the majority of cruises for schooners involved short coastal runs while sloops were being used for short ocean cruises, such as those to the Caribbean and Bermuda. As the colonists spread out along the waterways so did the shipbuilding efforts. The registers list construction sites along most of South Carolina's rivers - at places such as Pon Pon, Dorchester, BuU's Island, Dewees island, Wadmalaw, Combahee, and Pocotaligo. But the major ship-building areas centered around Charleston, Beaufort, and Georgetown. Most shipbuilding in Charleston took place outside the city proper. The three areas near town that became shipbuilding centers were James Island, Shipyard Creek, and Hobcaw. 

Although no shipyard sites have been located on James island, the colonial ship registers indicate a good amount of shipbuilding on the island. Between 1735 and 1772 more than thirty vessels list James Island as their place of construction in the ship registers. This includes the 130- ton ship Charming Nancy, built in 1752 for Charleston merchants Thomas Smith Sr. and Ben Smith. Shipyard Creek, now part of the naval base near Charleston, was another shipbuilding site during the colonial period. Many of the ships listing Charleston as their place of construction in the ship registers were probably built on Shipyard Creek. . 

During the last half of the eighteenth century Hobcaw Creek off the Wando River became the colony's largest shipbuilding center, boasting as many as three commercial shipyards in the immediate vicinity. The hugest shipyard in the Hobcaw area, indeed in all of colonial South Carolina, was the one started on the south side of the creek in 1753 by Scottish shipwrights John Rose and James Stewart. After making a considerable fortune, Rose sold the yard in 1769 to two other Scottish shipwrights, William Begbie and Daniel Manson. 

In 1778, Paul Pritchard bought the property and changed its name to Pritchard's Shipyard. During the Revolution the South Carolina Navy Board bought control of the yard and used it to refit vessels of the South Carolina Navy. After the Revolution ownership of the yard reverted to Pritchard and the property stayed in the Pritchard family until 1831. Another shipwright who owned a yard in the vicinity of Hobcaw Creek during South Carolina's colonial period was Capt. Clement Lempriere. . . . 

[The exact size of the many SC shipyards varied.  An established shipbuilder, John Rose on Hobcaw, employed 20 men.  Others were very small affairs, such as a few men building canoes.]

In 1751, Gov. James Glenn that the ""Cooper River appears sometimes a kind of floating market, and we have numbers of canoes, boats and pettiaguas that ply incessantly, bringing down the country produce to town, and returning with such necessary as are wanted by the planters."

South Carolina Shipbuilding in the Age of Sail - Part 3 

(Editor's Note: In the first two installments of this article we discussed the beginnings of shipbuilding in colonial South Carolina, the spread of shipbuilding throughout the colony, and the types of vessels being built by South Carolina shipwrights. In this third and final segment, the materials used in wooden shipbuilding in South Carolina will be discussed.) By Carl Naylor 

The early boatbuilders as well as shipwrights found local woods to be excellent building materials. The massive, naturally-curved live oak for the vessel's main timbers and the tall, yellow pine for planking and decking were as ideally suited for the small skiff as for the large three-masted ship. Live Oak and Yellow Pine The Gazette for 28 September 1765, after noting the vessels presently being built by Carolina shipwrights, claims that "as soon as the superiority of our Live-Oak Timber and Yellow Pine Plank, to the timber and plank of the Northern colonies, becomes more generally known, 'tis not to be doubted, that this province may vie with any of them in that valuable branch of business ... " And, six years later, the Gazette for 8 August 1771 reports that there had been several recent orders for Carolina-built ships from England as "Proof that the Goodness of Vessels built here, and the superior Quality of our live-Oak Timber to any Wood in America for ShipBuilding, is at length acknowledged." 

Of course, the Gazette's enthusiasm may have been somewhat of an eighteenth-century public relations effort, but there were others with no, or at least less visible, ulterior motives who praised Carolina-built vessels. Henry Laurens, the owner of many vessels built both in South Carolina and elsewhere, was one who promoted the superiority of the Carolina vessels and the skill of local shipwrights. In 1765 while discussing the cost of shipbuilding in Carolina with William Fisher, a Philadelphia shipowner, he notes that "The difference in the Cost of our Car0- lina built Vessels is not the great objection to building here. That is made up in the different qualities of the Vessels when built or some people think so." He adds that a vessel built in Philadelphia "would not be worth half as much (the hull of her) as one built of our live Oak & Pine ... " 

Writing to his brother James from England in 1774 in reference to acting as an agent in having a ship made in Carolina for a Bristol merchantile fum, he admits his hope that a Carolina-built ship on the Thames would assure that "our Ships built of live Oak & Pine will acquire the Character & Credit which they truly Merit." live oak and pine construction, along with the other popular shipbuilding timbers, were frequent advertising points in a vessel's sale. 

On 21 May 1754 the South Carolina Gazette ran a typical ad of this sort. It was for the sale of a schooner that would carry 95 to 1 00 barrels of rice. The ad notes that the vessel is "extraordinary well built, live oak and red cedar timber, with two streaks of white oak plank under her bends, the rest yellow pine. " live oak was an obvious and common choice for shipbuilding, yet cedar, although immensely less abundant, was also a favorite shipbuilding material due to its ability to resist the infamous teredo worm, also known as the shipworm. 

In 1779 when the new state sought to have a 42-foot pilot boat made the specifications recommended that "the whole of the frame Except the flore [floor] Timbers be of Ceadar." These woods also made for vessels with long lives. At a time when the average life expectancy of a wooden vessel was about fifteen years, Carolina-built ships boasted usual lives of twenty to thirty years. 

Once again, we turn to the colonial ship registers for evidence. In 1766, the 20-ton schooner Queenley was registered to trade between Carolina and Georgia. The Queenley was built in 1739 in South Carolina, twenty-seven years earlier. When the 15-ton schooner Friendship was registered for trade in 1773, it was already twenty-eight years old, having been built at Hobcaw in 1745. For additional evidence we turn to other sources. The South Carolina Gazette ran a story in 1773 that the aptly named 125-ton ship, live 0aJ; was "constantly employed in the Trade between this Port and Europe." The live Oak had been built on James Island twentyfour years earlier. This quality of Southern timber even reached the ears of Alexander Hamilton who wrote in his Federalist Papers that "The difference in the duration of the ships of which the navy might be composed, if chiefly constructed of Southern wood, would be of signal importance ••• 

" USS John Adams The high point of South Carolina wooden shipbuilding occurred on 5 JlDle 1799 with the launching of the 550-ton frigate John Adams- at the Paul Pritchard Shipyaxd on Shipyard Cleek. The Maim carried twenty-six 12-pound cannons and six 24-pound carronades making her the fIrst U.S. Navy vessel to be armed with carronades. She was built with a variety of native South Carolina woods. The floor timbers and futtocks were of live oak, the upper timbers were of cedar, the keel and keelson were of Carolina pine, the masts and spars were of long-leaf pine, and the deck beams were hewn from yellow pine logs cut along the Edisto River. In 1803 she saw action off Tripoli against the Barbary Powers. During the War of 1812 she spent most of her time blockaded in New Yark harbor. In 1863, at the age of sixty-four, she was ordered to join the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron off South Carolina. Her long and illustrious career ended in 1867 when she was sold out of the Navy and sent to the breaker's yard.