May 2014

Bruce G. Terrell, Gordon P. Watts & Timothy J. Runyan

The Search For Planter

The Ship that Escaped Charleston and Carried Robert Smalls to Destiny
National Marine Sanctuaries

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

The Maritime Heritage Program works cooperatively and in collaboration within the Sanctuary System and with partners 

outside of NOAA. We work to better understand, assess and protect America’s maritime heritage and to share what we learn 

with the public as well as other scholars and resource managers.

This is the first volume in a series of technical reports that document the work of the Maritime Heritage Program within and 

outside of the National Marine Sanctuaries. These reports will examine the maritime cultural landscape of America in all of its 

aspects, from overviews, historical studies, excavation and survey reports to genealogical studies.

No. 1: The Search for Planter: The Ship That Escaped Charleston and Carried Robert Smalls to Destiny.

No. 2: Archaeological Excavation of the Forepeak of the Civil War Blockade Runner Mary Celestia, Southampton, Bermuda

No. 3: Maritime Cultural Landscape Overview: The Redwood Coast

No. 4: Maritime Cultural Landscape Overview: The Outer Banks

No. 5: Survey and Assessment of the U.S. Coast Survey Steamship Robert J. Walker, Atlantic City, New Jersey.

These reports will be available online as downloadable PDFs and in some cases will also be printed and bound.

Additional titles will become available as work on the series progresses.

Cover Images - Robert Smalls: Library of Congress; Steamboat Planter: Naval History and Heritage Command; 

Map: NOAAs Historic Coast & Geodetic Survey Collection; Cover Collage: Matt McIntosh, ONMS

Publication Design & Layout: Matt McIntosh, ONMS; Liz.Liang, ONMS
May 2014

Bruce G. Terrell, Gordon P. Watts & Timothy J. Runyan

The Search For Planter

The Ship that Escaped Charleston and Carried Robert Smalls to Destiny
NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

2014

SSMC IV

1305 East West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Abstract

The sidewheel steamer Planter gained national fame when a 

group of enslaved African Americans commandeered the Confederate ship and made a successful flight to freedom. Under the 

leadership of Robert Smalls, the ship’s wheelsman and an African 

American, crew members navigated the steamer out of Charleston 

Harbor and delivered the vessel to the United States Navy. This report focuses on the history and archaeological survey of the famous 

American Civil War vessel, including Planter’s commercial and naval 

career, the story of Robert Smalls and his comrades, and the postwar 

shipwreck of the steamer. The report addresses the wreck of Planter

and the probable location of the vessel’s remains today, as well as 

the archaeological search for those remains and the subsequent 

changes in the coastal environment since the sinking in 1876. The 

report concludes with investigative recommendations on Planter, a 

historic ship telling a significant and timeless story of human hope 

and courage in the face of adversity. 

iThe Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

Table of Contents

Forwards......................................................................................................................................................iii

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................iv

Robert Smalls ...............................................................................................................................................1

The Steamer Planter......................................................................................................................................7

Planter’s Loss ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Locating Planter.................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12

The Search for Planter’s Remains..................................................................................................................13

Remote-Sensing Survey Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 13

Magnetic Remote Sensing.................................................................................................................................................... 13

Acoustic Remote Sensing..................................................................................................................................................... 13

Positioning System............................................................................................................................................................... 13

Data Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................ 14

Description of Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 14

Anomaly Assessment Probing.............................................................................................................................................. 15

Conclusions and Recommendations...............................................................................................................17

References .................................................................................................................................................19

Appendix A.................................................................................................................................................22

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................23

Cape Romain Shipwrecks Sources..................................................................................................................24

Other Cape Romain Sources..........................................................................................................................24

Maritime Heritage ......................................................................................................................................25

List of Figures

Figure 1. Robert Smalls and three colleagues who captured Planter ....................................................... 2

Figure 2. Sinking of the USS Keokuk ........................................................................................................ 3

Figure 3. Charleston Harbor seen from Fort Sumter 14 April 1865........................................................... 4

Figure 4. Robert Smalls between 1870 and 1880s ................................................................................... 5

Figure 5. Planter (Harper’s Magazine 14 June 1862) ............................................................................... 8

Figure 6. Planter illustration from Perry’s Saints ....................................................................................... 9

Figure 7. Stereo Photograph of Planter at Charleston wharf..................................................................... 9

Figure 8. Photograph of Planter at Georgetown........................................................................................ 9

Figure 9. 1878 Hydrographic survey chart of Cape Romain ................................................................... 11

Figure 10. NOAA Coast Survey Chart, 2012........................................................................................... 11

Figure 11. 1859 Chart overlaid on 1883 chart ......................................................................................... 11

Figure 12. Cape Romain satellite image, 2011........................................................................................ 12

Figure 13. Overlay of 1859, 1883 & 2012 charts with 2011 satellite image............................................. 12

Figure 14. High probability location for Planter remains.......................................................................... 13

Figure 15. Original and extended survey area with as-run track lines..................................................... 13

Figure 16. Launching the EG&G GEOMETRICS MAGNETOMETER .................................................... 13

Figure 17. Magnetic contour map............................................................................................................14

Figure 18. Sonar coverage mosaic.......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 19. Probe locations at the high-priority anomaly cluster............................................................... 16
iiMaritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter
iiiThe Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

Forward

To many observers Robert Smalls was the first African American hero of the Civil War. On the broader stage, he 

was known as a military hero – “General” Robert Smalls -- who fought in eleven battles on the CSS Planter and the 

USS Keokuk and was a charismatic leader who recruited African American men into the United States Army to fight 

for their freedom. On the social and political front he was Congressman Robert Smalls, whose bill in the South Carolina Legislature brought compulsory education to the state prior to his election to the U.S. House of Representatives, 

where he served five terms there representing his district in the “Low Country.” But to me and others in our family of 

direct descendants of Robert Smalls, he was “Grampa.” Being the great-granddaughter of Robert Smalls has been a 

life journey, one that shaped who I am and what is important to me as a woman, a mother, and a descendant of the 

“Low Country.” Freedom, education and civil rights for all were important values to Grampa, and as a result they are 

important to me. These values have been passed down through the family generations, and I have passed them on to 

my son and daughter, who in turn pass them on to their children. 

I am blessed to have been born into the Robert Smalls family. His work on the Planter and in the Low Country fills 

me with great pride. 

Helen Boulware Moore, Ph.D. 

Great-granddaughter of Robert Smalls 

Curator of the Robert Smalls Traveling Exhibit, “The Life and Times of Congressman Robert Smalls”

When ordinary men and women step forward and do extraordinary things, the story of the human race takes a 

quantum leap forward. In 1862 Robert Smalls was a slave assigned to steer the CSS Planter, an armed Confederate 

military transport. One night after Planter’s white officers decided to spend the night ashore, Smalls commandeered 

the vessel with a hardy band of ordinary men, women and children; their escape voyage freed themselves and helped 

free their nation from the bondage of slavery. 

Today men and women from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds -- some of them the sons and daughters of 

either former slaves or slave owners -- join in the effort to locate the ship and tell the story of those ordinary men and 

women, indelibly intertwined with the Planter. While rediscovering the Planter, professionals and volunteers of National 

Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Association of Black Scuba Divers (NABS) joined forces 

to shed light on this critical aspect of African American maritime history unknown to most of the world. The story of the 

quest for the steamer Planter and all that it represents is a treasure that unites our lives and shared destinies.

William A. Murrain

On behalf of the National Association of Black Scuba Divers

iiiThe Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1
ivMaritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

The saga of Robert Smalls’ rise to history is entwined with the small coastal steamboat Planter. Through an Initiative called 

the Voyage to Discover, NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries joined the National Association of Black SCUBA Divers (NABS) and the Bill Murrain Foundation to collaborate with the Institute for International Maritime Research, Inc. (IIMR) of 

Washington, North Carolina for the purpose of researching the history of the steamer Planter, determining the present location of 

the vessel’s remains, and identifying them. To that end, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and IIMR 

conducted an investigation off Cape Romain, South Carolina to locate the steamer’s remains. This investigation was conducted 

under a permit from the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology. The survey location was identified by historical and cartographic research carried out by NOAA. IIMR implemented a remote-sensing survey using cesium magnetometer 

and high-resolution side-scan sonar to cover that area as well as an extension of the original site. 

Historical research carried out by NOAA’s Maritime Heritage Program documented Planter’s history. That research also identified numerous details associated with the vessel’s loss in March 1876 and subsequent efforts to salvage the wreck. Historical 

records contained information on Planter’s specifications and the design of its steam machinery that provided insight into which 

anomaly characteristics might indicate the ship’s remains. Cartographic records researched by NOAA identified environmental 

characteristics of Cape Romain at the time of Planter’s loss and salvage. Those data supported identification of a high-priority 

area that was associated with the c. 1870-1880 shoreline of Cape Romain; that area, which would serve as the focus of the 

remote-sensing survey, was later extended along the historic shoreline during the field operations.

The remote-sensing survey at Cape Romain took place on 13 August 2010. Magnetometer data identified 17 anomalies in 

the original area and 9 in the extension. None of the magnetic anomalies in the original survey area exhibits signature characteristics typically associated with shipwreck remains, steam machinery or any equipment that could be associated with Planter. 

A concentration of 3 anomalies in the extension area contained signature characteristics suggestive of shipwreck remains. That 

concentration of anomalies was investigated by probing on 22 and 23 November 2010. Probing identified metal in two locations at depths of approximately 10 feet below the bottom surface. Based on the research and field work, these anomalies and 

contacts are presumed to represent the Planter wreck site.

Historical and cartographic research associated with the Planter project was carried out by Dr. Timothy J. Runyan, Acting 

Manager of the Maritime Heritage Program; NOAA historian and nautical archaeologist Bruce Terrell; Dr. Steven O. Rohmann, 

Ph.D. at the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries; and IIMR historian Robin Arnold. Historic map research and map graphics 

were prepared by John Macek of NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey Mapping and Charting Division. Project survey personnel 

included IIMR Principal Investigator Dr. Gordon P. Watts, Jr.; remote-sensing operator/archaeologist Joshua Daniel; and Dr. 

Tim Runyan. Probing investigations were conducted by Mr. Daniel and archaeologist Ralph Wilbanks. Dr. Watts and Mr. Daniel 

analyzed the remote-sensing data. Dr. Watts, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Terrell and Ms. Arnold prepared this report.

NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is particularly indebted to Dr. Timothy Runyan for his tireless efforts as an 

advocate for Robert Smalls and for finding Planter. Dr. Runyan led NOAA’s Maritime Heritage Program at a critical period between 2007 and 2010, during which time it matured from a fledgling collective of shipwreck-archaeologists to a program focused 

on outreach and the many facets of maritime heritage. Report design by Matt McIntosh and layout coordination by Liz Liang.

Introduction
1The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

Robert Smalls was born into slavery 

in Beaufort, South Carolina on April 5, 

1839. His mother, Lydia Polite, worked in 

the house of their master, John K. McKee. 

Smalls’ father is not clearly known, but 

historians believe he was likely a white 

man, and Smalls’ descendants believe he 

was likely McKee’s son Henry, who inherited Lydia and Robert in 1848 (Moore 

2001, Moore 2012b). House slaves, called 

“Swonga people” in the local Gullah dialect, were considered the elite among enslaved blacks because they had a closer 

association with the white culture they 

served (Miller 1995:7). 

As a youth Smalls was leased out for 

various tasks on the Charleston waterfront, including stints as waiter, lamplighter, stevedore on the city’s docks, shipyard 

rigger in winter and coastal sailor during 

the calm warm weather months. Smalls 

had a degree of freedom not always available to slaves. His master permitted him 

to keep a portion of his pay, and in 1858 

at the age of 19 he was able to marry Hannah Jones, an enslaved hotel maid. Smalls 

was allowed to begin the long-term purchase of both his wife and their newborn 

child from her master (Miller 1995:8-9). 

In July 1861 Robert Smalls took work 

as a deck hand on the steamboat Planter. 

Owned by John Ferguson, the vessel was 

used to transport cotton and passengers 

between Charleston and Georgetown, 

South Carolina. During the course of his 

work, Smalls learned to navigate through 

the shallow creeks and rivers of coastal 

South Carolina. Soon after the Civil War 

began, Planter was chartered by the Confederate government as a dispatch and 

survey boat. By that time Smalls had 

become Planter’s wheelman (also called 

steersman). Although the position was essentially the same as a “pilot,” black men 

were not allowed that level of command 

before the War Between the States (House 

of Representatives Report No. 1887); thus 

as second in command, the steersman 

transmitted the captain’s orders to the 

crew. The boat spent many months surveying the rivers and harbors along South 

Carolina’s central coast (Miller 1995:9). 

During this time Planter was active 

in Charleston Harbor, presumably with 

Smalls onboard. Baltimore’s daily newspaper reported on 31 December 1860 “the 

steamer Planter, with a detachment of the 

Citadel Cadets and guns of heavy caliber, 

proceeded on Monday morning to Morris’ 

Island for the purpose of taking charge of 

a breastwork that has been erected there” 

(Baltimore Sun 3 January 1861).1 Planter

also engaged in testing the blockade:

The steamer Planter ran on to sea a short 

distance on Sunday afternoon to reconnoiter, and encountered one of the blockading 

steamers. A number of shots were exchanged. 

Those of the enemy fell short, but one of the 

shots from the Planter is believed to have 

taken effect. This, probably, accounts for the 

heavy firing which was heard yesterday afternoon (Macon Telegraph 1 January 1862). 

On May 12, 1862 Planter returned to 

Charleston from a mission of taking on 

four cannon -- a banded 42-pounder rifled 

cannon, an 8-inch Columbiad, an 8-inch 

seacoast howitzer and a 32-pounder cannon -- and a gun carriage from the battery at Cole’s Island (ORN Series 1 vol. 

12:825-826). The Confederates planned 

to deliver the weaponry to Fort Ripley 

at Charleston’s Middle Ground the next 

morning. However, the evening before 

delivery while Planter was docked at the 

Southern Wharf in Charleston, the white 

crew members left the vessel to attend a 

ball. While they were gone, Smalls and the 

other eight black crewmen put into action 

a plan Smalls had conceived (Harper’s 

Weekly June 14, 1862). At 3 a.m. on May 

13, Smalls directed the crew to steam to 

Charleston’s North Atlantic wharf, where 

he took on his wife and children as well 

as several other crew members’ relatives. 

Then with Confederate flag flying they 

steamed out into the harbor just as dawn 

was approaching. With his back to the 

Confederate forts and wearing the captain’s straw hat, Smalls blew the steam 

whistle at the appropriate check points, 

thereby fooling the soldiers at the forts 

into believing Planter was simply getting 

an early start on the delivery of the cannons (Miller 1995:2-3). 

An interview with Robert Smalls a few 

weeks later published in Harper’s Weekly 

told the story: 

He entered upon his duties on board the 

Planter some six weeks since, and, as he told 

me, adopted the idea of running the vessel 

to sea from a joke which one of his companions perpetrated. He immediately cautioned 

the crew against alluding to the matter in 

any way on board the boat, but asked them, 

if they wanted to talk it up in sober earnestness, to meet at his house, where they would 

devise and determine upon a plan to place 

themselves under the protection of the Stars 

and Stripes instead of the Stars and Bars. 

Various plans were proposed, but finally the 

whole arrangement of the escape was left 

to the discretion and sagacity of Robert, his 

companions promising to obey him and be 

ready at a moment’s notice to accompany 

him. For three days he kept the provisions 

of the party secreted in the hold, awaiting 

an opportunity to slip away. At length, on 

Monday evening, the white officers of the 

vessel went on shore to spend the night, 

Robert Smalls

1

 The cadets fired the first shots of the war at the Star of the West, likely with some of these same guns, just a few days later on 9 January 1861.
2Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

Figure 1. Robert Smalls (top) and three of his colleagues with whom he captured Planter.

intending to start on the following morning for Fort Ripley, and to be absent from 

the city for some days. The families of the 

contrabands were notified and came stealthily on board. At about three o’clock the fires 

were lit under the boilers, and the vessel 

steamed quietly away down the harbor. The 

tide was against her, and Fort Sumter was 

not reached till broad daylight. However, 

the boat passed directly under its walls, giving the usual signal -- two long pulls and a 

jerk at the whistle-cord -- as she passed the 

sentinel. Once out of range of the rebel guns 

the white flag was raised, and the Planter

steamed directly for the blockading steamer 

Augusta (Harper’s Weekly June 14, 1862).

Planter was out of range by the time 

the Confederates realized they had been 

duped. Smalls delivered the vessel and its 

cargo to the Union warship USS Onward. 

Onward’s commander wrote, 

I immediately beat to quarters and sprung 

the ship around so as to enable me to bring 

her broadsides to bear, and had so far succeeded as to bring the port guns to bear, 

when I discovered that the steamer, now rapidly approaching, had a white flag set at the 

fore. The steamer ran alongside and I immediately boarded her, hauled down the flag 

of truce, and hoisted the American ensign, 

and found that it was the steamer Planter, of 

Charleston, and had successfully run past the 

forts and escaped. She was wholly manned 

by Negroes, who represented themselves 

to be slaves (ORN Series I vol. 12:822).

Not only did Smalls provide a valuable 

cargo of heavy guns, but he also shared 

detailed knowledge of Confederate military plans. He related the location of navigational channels and revealed where lethal torpedoes (mines) were planted that 

could sink U.S. ships. Admiral Samuel 

F. Du Pont, Commander of the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron of the U.S. 

Navy, was impressed with Smalls’ bravery and considered the newly self-liberated slave a hero, knowing he could easily 

have been executed had he been captured 

in the endeavor. Admiral Du Pont wrote 

to Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles,

“This man, Robert Smalls, is superior 

to any who has yet come into the lines, 

intelligent as many of them [contraband 

slaves] have been. His information has 

been most interesting, and portions of it 

of the utmost importance.” He also wrote, 

“I shall continue to employ Robert as a pilot on board the Planter for the inland waters, with which he appears to be very familiar” (ORN Series 1 vol. 12: 820-821).

Planter carried sixteen enslaved African 

Americans to freedom. Harper’s Weekly 

reported the names of his companions 

who “performed this gallant and perilous 

service: Robert Smalls, pilot; John Smalls 

and Alfred Gradine, engineers; Abraham 

Jackson, Gabriel Turno, William Morrison, Samuel Chisholm, Abraham Allston 

and David Jones. They brought with them 

the wife and three children of the pilot, 

and the wife, child and sister of the first 

engineer, John Smalls. The balance of the 

party were without families” (Harper’s 

Weekly, June 14 1862). 

Planter’s log, reportedly acquired by 

the New York Tribune and containing annotations by Smalls, listed the party as “ 

. . . Robt. Small, Pilot; Alfred Gridiron, 

Engineer; Abram Jackson, Jebel Turner, 

W.C. Thompson, Sam Chisholm, Abram 

Allerton, Hannah Small, Susan Small, 

Clara Jones, Anna White, Levina Wilson, 

David McCloud, 3 small children”(Salem 

Weekly, June 19, 1862).2

 (Figure 1).

The Northern newspapers were elated 

by the news of Smalls’ bravery, and he was 

referred to far and wide as the “Hero of 

the Planter” (New York Times 3 October 

2 Smalls’ descendants state that a girl, Clara, was the daughter of his wife Hannah from a previous marriage; this may be the Clara Jones noted in the Salem Weekly. Helen Boulware 

Moore, Smalls’ great-granddaughter, adds that two of the “small children” referenced were Robert and Hannah’s children, Robert Smalls Jr. and Elizabeth Smalls (Moore 2012b).

Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, June 21, 1862
3The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

1862). The New York Herald called the escape “one of the most daring and heroic adventures since the war was commenced...“ 

(18 May 1862). Not surprisingly, the Southern press was not pleased. The Charleston 

Daily Courier reported, 

“We learn that this vessel, which has 

been allowed to escape under our very 

noses, to the enemy with a heavy responsibility somewhere, had on board six cannon; one of them a rifled cannon, the rest 

common guns” (15 May 1862). 

The Confederate command in Charleston convened a trial of the officers responsible for the loss of Planter in July 1862. 

On trial were Captain C.J. Relyea, mate 

S.S. Hancock, and S.Z. Pitcher, engineer. 

The captain and mate were found guilty 

of allowing Planter to be commandeered. 

Lt. General John Pemberton, the man in 

charge of Charleston’s defenses, overruled 

their sentences and the two were released 

from custody (New York Times 1862). 

That July Congress awarded Smalls 

and his crew $4,584, half of the assessed 

value of the ship, which was to be divided by Admiral Du Pont. Smalls’ share 

was $1,500 (ORN Series 1 vol. 13: 823, 

Welles to Du Pont 15, July 1862). He 

spent the next twenty years contesting the 

valuation of the award and ultimately received an upward adjustment during the 

1880s (Miller 1995:11-12).

In the months after the Planter escapade Robert Smalls found himself pulled 

in several directions by political and military leaders. Across the North his notoriety identified him as a potential leader of 

his people, and he was called to Washington, D.C. to meet Secretary of War Edwin 

M. Stanton as well as prominent members 

of Washington’s African American community, who wanted him to encourage the 

government to permit black soldiers to 

enlist in the U.S. Army. 

Following Smalls’ famous action, he 

and his new charge Planter were assigned 

to Port Royal, South Carolina, and soon 

after, on June 25, he piloted the vessel in 

an action against the Confederate enemy 

on the North Edisto River at Simmons 

Bluff (ORN Series 1 vol. 13: 125-126). 

Although Admiral Du Pont by then was 

relying on Smalls’ critical knowledge of 

local waters, he reluctantly allowed his 

pilot to be sent on public speaking engagements in New York, Washington and 

some Unionized parts of South Carolina. 

By November 1862 Smalls was back from 

his speaking tour and was assigned as pilot 

to several naval ships operating in South 

Carolina waters (Miller 1995:15,19). 

During his absence Planter had been 

transferred from the Navy to the U.S. Army 

Quartermaster Corps because the Navy was 

not equipped to operate wood-fueled steamers like Planter. On September 10, Admiral 

Du Pont reported to Gideon Welles, 

The steamer Planter, owing to the circumstance of using wood only as fuel for the 

engine, is almost useless to the Navy from 

the great difficulty of procuring it. This difficulty does not exist to any extent with the 

Army, and I have therefore transferred her 

to Brigadier-General Brannan to be used 

in the vicinity of Fort Pulaski. Enclosed 

is a receipt for her from the chief quartermaster . . . (ORN Series 1 vol. 13: 321).

Planter was used in riverine operations 

supporting the Army at various places that 

included Pocotaligo on October 22, 1862 

(ORN Series 1 vol. 14). After action at 

Kirk’s Bluff on the May River on October 

19, 1862, it was reported that “the enemy’s 

fire at times was very heavy, shots striking 

the steamer in almost every part, and two 

passing through and through her” (ORA 

19 October 1862 Series 1 vol. 14:123). 

Smalls had frequently stated his desire to see action in service of his country, and he soon had ample opportunity. 

He was assigned as pilot at various times 

to the ships Bibb, Huron, Crusader and 

Paul Jones. On 1 March 1863 he was 

transferred to Army service; the transfer 

seemed not to affect his duty stations, 

as he was next found piloting the ironclad USS Keokuk on 7 April 1863 when 

it accompanied a number of other ships 

attempting to enter Charleston Harbor. 

When more than 90 shells hit Keokuk, 

Smalls navigated the ship out of range 

of rebel guns, where it finally sank. He 

claimed later that his eyes were injured 

from the enemy’s cannon fire (Miller 

1995:17-19). (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Sinking of the USS Keokuk, Robert Smalls navigating.

Naval History and Heritage Command
4Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

Yard for a complete refit. Three years of 

service on both sides of the Civil War had 

taken their toll on the steamer. The assessment and repairs were conducted on the 

New Jersey side of the Delaware River at 

Newark’s National Iron Armor and Shipbuilding Company, located on Kaighn’s 

Point. The work lasted until late December 1864 (Schmidt 28 May 1864). 

While awaiting the completion of the 

ship’s refitting, Smalls sought instruction 

in reading and writing. Politics called 

again and he was sent as a delegate to represent the city of Beaufort, South Carolina at the National Republican Convention 

at Baltimore. Around this time a muchreported event occurred in Philadelphia, 

in which the heroic waterman was evicted 

from a white-only public streetcar. The 

local furor caused by the resulting media 

articles was said to be the direct cause 

of the Pennsylvania State Legislature to 

integrate public transportation in 1867 

(Reef 2010:211; Miller 1995:22-23). 

Smalls and Planter were recognized and 

honored by the populace of Charleston just 

after the city’s fall and return to the Union in 

February 1865. A correspondent recounted 

the scene as he accompanied Major General Rufus B. Saxton, military governor of the 

Department of the South3

, into Charleston 

for the first time on board Planter:

It was their first appearance in the harbor since 

the memorable morning of their departure in 

1862. The fog detained us for a few hours on 

our arrival at the bar. When it cleared away, 

you can imagine with what cheer our anchor 

came up, and with what smiles and satisfaction the vessel and her commander swept 

by the silenced and dismantled Sumter, and 

hauled in to the waiting, wondering wharves 

of the ruined city. Wherever we went on 

shore, we had only to say to the colored people, ‘The Planter and Capt. Small [sic] are 

on at the dock’ and away they all hurried to 

greet the well-known, welcome guests. ‘Too 

sweet to think of,’ cried one noble-looking 

old man, who had evidently waited long 

for the good news of our day, as he hastened to join the crowd (Brown 1867:293).

Smalls continued to command Planter

past the end of the war, and the presence 

of both Captain Smalls and his ship were 

much noted during the grand ceremony 

of raising Fort Sumter’s flag on April 14, 

1865. Smalls captained a full ship of black 

passengers to witness the symbolic event, 

and one of them wrote, “Almost central in 

interest, the ‘Planter,’ crowded almost to 

suffocation upon her three decks, with Gen. 

Saxton’s freedmen, revealed her splashing 

paddles through the broken wheelhouse.” 

Upon the top of the wheelhouse stood 

Robert Smalls, “...a prince among them, 

self-possessed, prompt and proud, giving 

his orders to the helmsman in ringing tones 

of command” (French 1865 43-44). 

From the end of the war until late 1866 

Robert Smalls continued in his country’s 

service, as Planter was ordered to support 

the Freedmen’s Bureau in transporting 

formerly enslaved people to camps at Hilton Head Island. On several of the Sea Islands, the U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps 

under General Saxton had turned confiscated lands into self-sustaining encampments and communities for freedmen who 

had escaped to the Federal forces. Often 

It is unclear when Smalls was reunited 

with Planter, but in December 1863 he 

was on board as pilot under a Captain 

Nickerson when they came under fire 

from Confederate batteries at Seccessionville during a mission to move supplies 

along Folly Island Creek. The shelling 

was so intense that the captain ordered 

Smalls to beach Planter, then immediately hid below decks in a coal bunker. 

Smalls, still on deck and realizing the 

captain had abandoned his station, entered the pilot house and took the vessel 

out of range of enemy guns. After review, 

the Commanding General Quincy Gillmore dismissed Nickerson for cowardice 

and appointed Robert Smalls as the ship’s 

captain, thus Smalls became the first African American to be appointed a ship’s 

master in the U.S. military (House of 

Representatives Report No. 1887). 

In May 1864 Smalls was ordered to 

take Planter to the Philadelphia Navy 

3

 He later became a commissioner of the Freedmen’s Bureau.

Figure 3. Charleston Harbor seen from Fort Sumter on 14 April 1865 at ceremonial raising of 1861 flag.

Library of Congress
5The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

referred to as “the Port Royal Experiment,” the Army organized settlements 

that were farmed by freedmen who lived 

off the produce and sold the excess to the 

government for a profit. One of the most 

successful, Mitchelville on Hilton Head 

Island, was named for General Ormsby 

Mitchel, a Union military man known for 

protecting slaves who escaped to his lines 

long before it was mandated by Federal 

policy (Rose; Ochiai 2001). Planter’s passenger manifests from July to November 

1865 reflect its transport of both soldiers 

and freedmen from Charleston to Hilton 

Head. Planter was officially turned over 

to the Freedmen’s Bureau on September 

30, 1865 (Low 7 November 1866).

Following the cessation of hostilities, the 

Army attempted to sell Planter but could 

not obtain the desired price. John Ferguson, 

the former owner, tried to convince General 

Daniel Sickles’ staff to resell the steamer to 

him; the staff reported that he claimed “she 

was stolen by negroes and captured from 

them by our blockading squadron, that he 

had taken the amnesty oath, and the steamer 

should be restored to him with other property.” Ferguson’s offer of $25,000 was refused (Army and Navy Journal 1866:326).

Smalls’ final action as Planter’s commander was to transport her to Baltimore 

to be sold; there an inspection by the commander of the USS Tacony was completed in July 1866. The steamer, valued at 

$15,000, was sold to Mordecai and Company for $7,700 on September 18, 1866. 

In January 1867 the company sold it back 

to Ferguson -- for far less than his original offer to the Army. Ferguson soon had 

Planter registered and back in operation 

on its old pre-war route between Charleston, Georgetown and the communities on 

the Pee Dee River. 

During the early antebellum years 

Smalls continued to make use of the fame 

created by his Planter career. He also 

seems to have invested money, the funds 

most likely stemming from his initial reward for commandeering Planter and 

his captain’s pay from the Army. He had 

started purchasing property early: In 1862 

he bought a store in Beaufort and invested 

money in other properties as well (Miller 

1995:17); in 1863 at a slave tax sale he purchased the Beaufort house where he was 

born, at 511 Prince Street (Greenlee 1973).

After the war was over, Robert Smalls 

became involved in local politics through 

his concerns over education for the local 

black community. During this time he 

joined with thirty-seven other black men 

and several whites to create the Beaufort 

Republican Club, a launching pad for 

nominating blacks to office. Smalls himself was nominated as a delegate to the 

March 21, 1866 Charleston Union Republican Convention and he went on to participate in the creation of the Republican 

Party platform. He was included in the list 

of nominated delegates and was elected as 

a state representative, serving from 1868 

to 1872. Smalls then was elected as a state 

senator and served until 1874.

Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Smalls represented South Carolina 

for a dozen years in Washington, D.C., from 

1875 to 1887 (Figure 4). Although he was 

considered an honest man by his supporters and friends, several times during his political career he was accused of corruption 

and misappropriation of funds, accusations 

likely cast by the many political adversaries 

who abounded during the fractious period 

of reconstruction in the South and fought 

ruthlessly to oust black politicians. He was 

absolved of these accusations before he left 

office in 1887. Robert Smalls returned to 

his house in Beaufort and served his appointment as Collector of Customs from 

1889 to 1911 (Billingsley; Miller 1995). It 

was reported that when he heard of Planter’s loss in 1876 he felt as though one of his 

own children had died (Charleston News 

and Courier 21 September 1876).

Figure 4. Robert Smalls between 1870 and 1880s

Library of Congress
6Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

Civil War

Actions in which Planter participated

(All locations are in South Carolina) (Billingsley):

Engagement at Secessionville. May 31, 1862

Occupation of Edisto Island. June 3, 1862

Action on Simmon’s Bluff. June 23, 1862

Affair on Skull Creek., September 24, 1862

Affair at Kirk’s Bluff. October 18, 1862

Skirmish at Coosawatchie. October 21, 1862

Skirmish at Coosawatchie and Engagements at Caston and 

Frampton Plantations near Pocotaligo., October 21, 1862

Expedition up St. Mary’s River. January 23-February 1, 1863

The Campaign of the Carolinas, December 31, 1864-

March 24, 1865 and April 10-May 28, 1865

Destruction of Locomotives and Rolling Stock 

between Sumterville and Camden April 1, 1865

Expedition to Camden., April 5-25, 1865 
7The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

The sidewheel steamer Planter was built 

in Charleston for John Ferguson between 

1859 and 1860. She was constructed at the 

Francis M. Jones shipyard at the west end 

of South Battery Street, then known as East 

Bay Street. The hull measured 147 feet long 

by 30 feet wide, had a depth of hold of 7 

feet 10 inches and drew only 3 feet 9 inches 

of water; the stern was rounded. Built of 

live oak and red cedar, the vessel’s registered tonnage was 313 tons (Charleston TriWeekly Courier 1860; Simmons 174-175; 

Flinn Master’s Oath). 

Following the construction of the hull 

and cabins, Planter was towed around to 

the western side of Charleston where the 

machinery was installed at the Cameron and 

Company’s iron foundry on Hasell Street4, 

including two horizontal high-pressure 

engines utilizing wood-burning fireboxes 

for the boilers; those twin non-condensing 

engines drove two side-paddle wheels 

(Charleston Tri-Weekly Courier 1860). The 

two boilers were placed on the main deck 

rather than in the bottom of the hull. Planter’s cylinder was 18 inches in diameter with 

a 72-inch stroke (ORA Series II vol 1:180). 

During Planter’s construction, a correspondent visited Cameron’s machine 

shop, writing:

We examined, with much pleasure, the 

bed-plate of a Doctor Engine, designed by 

Mr. J.F. Taylor, one of the partners of the 

concern. To those who are not cognizant of 

what is a ‘Doctor Engine, we may say it is a 

Beam Engine, with four pumps. Two pumps 

are placed on each end of the bed-plate. On 

each side of the bed-plate there are four columns, with a heater upon the top. The water 

is drawn through each side of the bed-plate 

up through the columns into the heater, from 

whence it returns again to the force pump 

through the columns, and is discharged from 

the side of the bed-plate through short pieces 

of pipe into the boiler. Two of these were in 

course of construction -- one for Captain Ferguson’s steamer Planter, and the other for the 

new boat of Messrs R.C. & I. Davis (Charleston Tri-Weekly Courier 23 August, 1860).

Planter was reputed to be one of 

the fastest boats in Charleston Harbor. 

Owned and captained by Ferguson, the 

sidewheeler transported cotton and passengers between landings on the Pee Dee 

River, Georgetown and Charleston; she 

could carry up to 1,800 bales of cotton on 

the decks (Charleston Tri-Weekly Courier 

14 August 1860). 

During its lease to the Confederacy, 

Planter was armed with a 32-pounder bow 

cannon and a 24-pounder howitzer on the 

stern. After Smalls commandeered her, U.S. 

Navy records noted that the vessel still possessed the same armament and suggested 

that at least for a while it retained the Confederate guns (ORN Series II vol 1:180). 

The steamer was also protected by the addition of “musket proof bulwarks around her 

aft and about her machinery” (ORN Series 

1 vol. 13:126). Shortly after this observation, Planter was noted as having a “little 

Parrott gun on her bow” during action at Pocotaligo in October, so the vessel may have 

been rearmed under Army supervision. Battle reports also show Planter making use of 

a 30-pounder Parrott rifle during the battle 

(Nichols 1886; ORA Series 1 vol 14:147). 

Several changes were made to Planter

upon her transfer to the Army. A U.S. 

Army Quartermaster captain at Hilton 

Head wrote, “Her machinery is not in 

very good order, and will require some 

repairs, etc.; but this I can have done here. 

She will be of much service to us, as we 

have comparatively no vessels of light 

draft” (Elwell 10 September 1862).

The wear of battle showed on Planter

by 1863 when she passed Fortress Monroe, Virginia on a voyage to New York: 

The prize steamer Planter, 3 1⁄2 days from Port 

Royal, put into Hampton Roads, last Friday, 

as reported. She is short of fuel, and is bound 

to New-York. The boat is unfit for sea, and her 

boilers are sadly out of repair. She has a cargo of 675 bales of cotton and 125 barrels turpentine . . . She has got aground near Craney 

Island . . . “ (New York Times 29 July 1863).5

Finally, in spring 1864 Robert Smalls 

was ordered to take Planter to the Philadelphia Naval Yard to have the vessel assessed and repaired. A report on the boat’s 

condition said:

We have examined the Boilers Engines etc. 

of the “Steamer Planter” and would recommend that the following alterations and 

repairs be made viz-The Boilers should be 

condemned and new ones put in. The new 

Boilers should be placed in the hold of the 

vessel in order to get a gangway from bow 

to stern, for moving freight or Guns. The 

Cylinder of the Starboard Engine, should 

be rebored [sic]. The Crosshead brasses for 

both Engines should be renewed. The Starboard Engine will require a new piston head 

and rings, both Engines Should be lined 

up. The Donkey Engine requires a new Set 

of valves, and Sundry other slight repairs. 

The[re] should be an auxiliary Steam pump 

put in for Boiler feed, bilge fire pump, as 

the vessel is entirely deficient in one pump 

at present. A new Exhaust Pipe will be required and Sundry repairs to Smoke Pipe. 

The Copper and other Pipes from Boilers to 

Engines, Donkey etc. will require altering to 

suit the new Boilers. The vessel Should be 

hauled out and such repairs made, as may 

be found necessary (Whiting 19 May 1864). 

The Steamer Planter

4

 These machine shops were burned during the December 11 and 12, 1861 fire that destroyed much of Charleston (Harper’s Weekly 28 December 1861).

5

 The Official Records do not reflect anything regarding this voyage.
8Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

Whiting’s examination of the hull followed two days later:

We have examined the Hull of the “Steamer 

Planter” and find that the following alterations and repairs will be necessary viz-The 

vessel Should be hauled out _ her bottom 

stripped of the Sheathing Metal and recaulked 

and coppered, the Seams in Main deck are 

open and Should be caulked.]If the Boilers 

are placed in the hold a hatch will have to be 

formed in Main deck and Some alterations 

made in the Staunchions [sic] above and below deck _ New Planking will be required 

on her guards (Whiting 26 May 1864).

By May 28 Planter had been moved to 

the New Jersey side of the river to the National Iron Armor and Ship Building Co. at 

Kaighn’s Point in Newark. The company 

president, William Milligan, wrote Captain 

Charles Schmidt of the Army Quartermaster 

Corps that, in addition to the above-noted 

repairs, Planter would need “Repairs to the 

Joiner Work Painting &c, the Vessel being 

in very bad order but the hull appears sound 

and with the above repairs, She would be 

for a long time Serviceable.” He estimated 

the costs from $25,000 to $29,000 (Milligan 

28 May 1864). Work progressed through 

the summer and fall until December 1864, 

when Smalls at last rejoined the vessel and 

took her back to Port Royal, arriving on December 24 (Miller 1995:23). 

Army Quartermaster billing correspondence following the completion of work 

gives detail on Planter’s repairs. Joinery 

repair was done by the Maples & Wheaton 

Company. The berths, cabin interiors and 

doors of the promenade deck were all rotted 

and were replaced, as were the stanchions 

that supported the deck over the cargo area. 

The hurricane deck windows were fixed 

to halt leakage. New interior joinery was 

required in the kitchen, coal bunkers and 

bulkheads. The ceiling was torn out to replace a beam between the paddlewheels. 

The fore and aft shear moldings were all replaced, as were most of the carlings, which 

had to be scarphed to create new ends, the 

old ones having all rotted (Wheeler 18 January 1865). 

The promenade and hurricane decks 

reportedly “leaked like a sieve” and appeared not to have been re-canvassed 

since the original construction. The decks 

were almost all re-canvassed, and the entire boat was then repainted. D.W. Cleary 

& Sons Plumbers repaired the water closet on the promenade deck as well as the 

twelve cabin water closets on the main 

deck. They also repaired scuppers in the 

wheel house and the main deck. In addition, all cabin furniture was re-upholstered 

and painted. Blacksmiths built new water 

wheels, repaired guard beams, and built 

new straps for the hog frame (Wheeler 18 

January 1865).

The smokestack could not be repaired 

so a new stack was required, as were a 

new auxiliary donkey engine and a capstan (Wheeler 24 January). New boilers, 

most of the paddlewheels and a smokestack had to be constructed. Only a portion of the starboard engine was reflected 

in the billing correspondence (Milligan 

26 January 1865). A letter from the time 

of sale in 1866 also suggests that the firebox had been converted to coal-burning, 

stating that “all her expenses, except coal, 

were to be borne by the [Freedmen’s] 

Bureau” (Low 7th November 1866). The 

final cost for repaired and reconstructed 

features for Planter totaled $40,850.64 

(Milligan 26 January 1865).

A question on Planter’s appearance 

emerges when examining contemporary 

illustrations. The earliest known image 

of Planter appeared in Harper’s Magazine on 14 June 1862 (Figure 5); this 

Figure 5. Note artist’s placement of Planter’s stack just one month after event. (Harper’s Magazine 14 June 1862)

Harper’s Magazine 14 June 1862
9The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

engraving, published just one month 

after her capture, shows a steamer with 

reinforced bulwarks and the smokestack 

placed forward of the pilot house of the 

boat. The editor wrote, “We publish herewith an engraving of the steamer Planter, 

lately run out of Charleston by her negro 

crew . . . from photographs sent us by our 

correspondent at Hilton Head.” The referenced photograph is presently not authoritatively known, but if found might 

clarify whether the stack was, indeed, 

placed forward or aft of the pilot house. 

The forward stack arrangement appears 

in several subsequent 19th century publications relating to Planter including 

Perry’s Saints (Nichols 1886; Figure 6) 

and the Official Records of the Union and 

Confederate Navies (ORN 1882 Series 1 

vol 12:820b).

A stack built forward of the pilot house 

would likely block the pilot’s vision, thus 

it was not a typical arrangement on steamers of this type and era. The only known 

period photographs of Planter are both 

undated, one stereo photograph taken at 

Charleston (Figure 7) and another taken at 

Georgetown.6

 (Figure 8). 

Both photographs show the stack 

placed aft of the pilothouse. It is worth 

noting that the Charleston image shows 

Planter with a square pilot house while 

the Georgetown image shows a rounded 

house possibly reflecting renovations 

made at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in 

1864. It is possible that one of these images is the photograph referred in by 

Harper’s Magazine (above). The correspondence of the Army Quartermaster in 

1864 makes no mention of the stack being 

moved aft from a forward position. It is 

possible that the original engraving was 

misrepresented by an artist who had no 

familiarity with Planter and that image 

was then copied through the years.

As noted above, Planter remained active in military actions during the first 

months of 1865 and with the Freedmen’s 

Bureau through the middle of 1866. In 

July 1866 the Army determined to sell the 

vessel and placed this advertisement in the 

local papers:

Will be sold at Public Auction at North 

Commercial Wharf, at 10 o’clock A.M. August 15th, 1866, the U.S. steamer “Planter,” 

with all her equipments. The “Planter” 

is well adapted for carrying cotton, having capacity for one thousand bales. Her 

hull and machinery are in perfect order. 

She is 150 feet long; 46 feet beam; 7 feet 

depth of hold; draught 6 feet; has two tubular boilers; two horizontal high-pressure 

engines, not connected; diameter of cylinder 20 inches; stroke of piston 6 feet. 

Terms cash, in Government funds, C.W. 

Thomas, Brevet Lieut. Col. And Chief 

Quartermaster (Thomas 31 July 1866).

Following John Ferguson’s fortunate 

purchase of Planter from Mordecai & 

Co., the steamer resumed her pre-war 

role in the cotton trade, steaming between 

Charleston, Georgetown and the Pee Dee 

River stops, including Gardeners Bluff. 

Planter was re-documented at Charleston on 17 November 1866 and was givFigure 6. Planter illustration from Perry’s Saints.

Figure 8. Photograph of Planter at Georgetown, South Carolina.

Courtesy of New York Public Library Nichols

Figure 7. Stereo photograph of Planter probably taken at Accommodation Wharf in 

Charleston.

6

 Miller (1995: following 92) cites this photograph from the Navy Historical Center (now Naval History Command) as a prewar image, but the Navy’s records do not reflect this. Naval History and Heritage Command
10Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

en the official number 19658 (Mitchell 

1979:175). Ferguson died several years 

later in 1869, and ownership passed to 

Ravenel and Holmes & Co., owners of 

the Accommodation (sic) Line at Accommodation Wharf opposite 177 East Bay 

(Charleston Daily News 27 May 1872; 

Sholes 1882:19). 

In addition to a regular schedule, 

Planter was also chartered by numerous 

groups, and such occasions were often 

noted in contemporary newspapers. She 

seemed to be a particular favorite of African Americans, likely due to her association with Robert Smalls: “The Steamer 

Planter, which started from this city yesterday for Savannah, has been engaged, 

we understand, to bring on a colored 

fire company of that place on a visit” 

(Charleston Courier 4 June 1869:4). Also, 

“The negro excursionists from Tallahassee, arrive in our city on the 4th. They 

were taken in charge by the Baptist congregation here and escorted to the First 

African Baptist Church, Where a sumptuous dinner was spread for them” (Savannah Morning News 6 July 1871). 

Planter’s Loss

On Wednesday 22 March 1876, Planter was under the command of Captain 

John Flinn as she made one of her regular cruises north to Georgetown. While 

there, the captain was made aware that the 

schooner Carrie Melvin had run aground 

at Cape Romain the previous Monday in 

the sandy shoals just off Cape Island. Not 

being obligated again until Saturday the 

25th, Flinn determined to go to the Melvin

in hopes of possibly towing her to deeper 

water (Charleston News and Courier 29 

March 1876:4). 

The weather on Thursday the 23rd was 

mild but rainy and the barometer was reported to be falling. Owing to her shallow 

draft, Planter was able to reach the Melvin

and take her hawser. Planter succeeded in 

changing the Melvin’s position, also moving her “twice her length towards the channel” before the line parted. By then it was 

too late in the day to make a further attempt 

on the existing tide. Flinn took Planter

around behind Cape Island and anchored 

for the evening in the channel between 

Cape Island and Lighthouse Island near the 

two Cape Romain Lighthouses (Charleston News and Courier 29 March 1876:4). 

The next morning, March 24th, Planter

ventured back out into a heavy sea; while 

attempting to get close to Melvin the 

sidewheeler struck the shoal and sprang 

a leak. Flinn, finding that the pumps on 

Planter could not keep up with the rate 

of the incoming water, elected to ground 

the shallow-hulled Planter on the beach, 

hoping to repair the leak and get off on 

the next flood tide. Unfortunately, a gale 

rose before the flood tide, and by then the 

surf had damaged Planter beyond repair. 

The passengers were safely carried to the 

beach in the lifeboat and the crew immediately set to salvaging all moveable 

goods (Charleston News and Courier 29 

March 1876:4). 

The storm that had broken Planter

raged for several days. All of eastern 

South Carolina was affected, as tornados blew through and a temperature drop 

caused a frost that killed most of the fruit 

and garden crops in Georgetown. After 

the storm abated, five passengers who 

had weathered the storm in the care of the 

Cape Romain light keepers were brought 

out to the pilot schooner Atalanta, which 

carried them to Georgetown. The eighteen crew members, including Captain 

Flinn, arrived in Charleston on board 

the steamer Clarendon by March 31 and 

reported that Planter was “too much injured to be repaired.” The bow was facing to sea and had been opened up, it was 

reported, while the guards were broken 

and she was “fast becoming a wreck” 

(Charleston News and Courier 29 March 

1876:4; Charleston News and Courier 1 

April 1876:4). 

Clarendon carried salvaged rigging 

from Carrie Melvin, also reported to be 

ashore. Melvin was so high on the shoal 

that she was thought lost for good, so after being stripped of all saleable materiel 

the vessel was sold. Ironically, the new 

owners towed her off the shoal by May 

30 and in June Melvin was at the Pregnell 

shipyard in Charleston being repaired 

(Charleston News and Courier 30 May 

1876:4; Charleston News and Courier 16 

June 1876:4). 

Planter was not so fortunate -- the 

damage was complete, and an immediate replacement for her route needed to 

be found. By May 19 the News and Courier announced the construction of “the 

hull of a new steamer, to take the place 

of the ‘Planter’ on the Georgetown route, 

[it] has been estimated for by several of 

our mechanics and will, it is expected, 

shortly be put under way” (Charleston 

News and Courier 19 May 1876:4). This 

vessel, too, was named Planter; it had 

the same owners of Ravenel and Holmes, 

& Co. and was captained by John Flinn, 

who had been absolved of any responsibility in the loss of the original Planter

(Charleston News and Courier 5 June 

1876:4; Charleston News and Courier 12 

June 1876:4). 

By mid-July the salvage of Planter

was complete. Between July 14 and July 

18, the Courier carried adverts for the 

auction of the steamer at Accommodation Wharf to be held on July 16 (14 July 

1876:4).

Sundry articles saved from Steamer Planter

consisting in part of: CYLINDERS, Pistons, Valve Gear, Connecting Rods, Rollers, Donkey Pumps, Hoisting Engine, 

Copper and Iron Pipes, lot Wrought Iron, 

Water Wheel, Shafts, Centers, Cranks, 

Cabin Doors, Shutters and Panel work, 

Binnacle, Spirit Compass, Mattress, Blankets, Blocks, & c, &c. Also, One Metallic LIFE BOAT, Yawl, Chains, &c. Also, 

Two MARINE ENGINES, 16 inch Cylinder, 6 feet stroke. One Steam Pump, 

two Wooden Bilge Pumps (Charleston 

News and Courier 17-18 July 1876:4).

On 19 July the Courier noted, 

THE SALE OF THE PLANTERS’ REMAINS - A quantity of furniture, machinery, iron and copper, recovered from the 

wreck of the steamer Planter, were sold by 

Mr. W.Y. Leitch, yesterday, in general lots. 

The whole amount brought $1,000 cash.

Locating Planter

In order to locate the present position 

of extant remains of Planter, NOAA’s 

Maritime Heritage Program reviewed 

historic charts relative to the 1876 sinking episode and assessed the accounts 

from the Charleston News and Courier 

mentioning geographic features. Cape Island lies in a dynamic environment and 

has encountered many geomorphological changes from shifting sands over the 

135 years since Planter’s loss. Tracking 
11The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

the cape’s movement is difficult because 

original charts were often produced sev-

eral years after the surveys, and during 

the interval the topography could change 

rapidly. Geo-rectification of the following 

historic charts was accomplished by us-

ing the positions of the unique dual light-

houses and creek at Lighthouse Island 

which seems to have consistently main-

tained its channel over the last 138 years.

The hydrographic survey used for an 

1878-published chart shows the likely 

topography of Cape Romain at the time 

of Planter’s demise (Figure 9). This chart 

appears to be relatively the same as a 

1883 Coast Survey chart used for the fol-

lowing overlays. The reader will notice 

the breakers marked to the southeast as 

well as the channel between Lighthouse 

Island (then part of Raccoon Key to the 

east) and Cape Island.

Figure 10 (below), shows an 1883 

U.S. Coast Survey sounding map (in 

blue) that is geo-rectified and laid over a 

NOAA Coast Survey Chart (#11351 ed. 

23, 2012) in black. The modern chart was 

likely surveyed around 2011 (pers. com. 

John Macek, 2012) and represents the 

southern tip of Cape Island. The black 

outline shows the recent channel between 

Cape Island and Lighthouse Island, to 

the west, to be narrower and skewed to 

the west as opposed to the 1883 channel. 

The previous edition of the modern chart 

showed, in 1967, that the channel was 

completely closed. This channel seems to 

have periodically changed its course. The 

blue sounding marks indicate the 1883 

channel between Cape and Lighthouse 

islands (Figure 10).

At the time of this document’s writ-

ing, the 1878 chart was not available for 

geo-rectification, so an overlay was made 

with the 1859 survey (in white) to show 

the cape’s migration (Figure 11). Note the 

presence of breakers and shallow sound-

ings up to 1⁄2 mile south of the cape in 

the 1859 chart. The channel between the 

Cape and Lighthouse islands is promi-

nent in both charts. The white “blobs” are 

sandy shoals that appear to break the sur-

face of the water.

A 2011 U.S. Department of Agricul-

ture Farm Service satellite image shows 

a relatively recent representation of Cape 

Romain (Figure 12). The Cape Island 

channel has reopened since a 2006 image 

Figure 9. 1878 Hydrographic survey chart of Cape Romain.

Figure 10. NOAA Coast Survey Chart, 2012.

Figure 11. 1859 Coast Survey Chart (white) overlaid on 1883 chart (blue).

NOAA NOAA NOAA
12Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

at Bull’s Bay that Planter and Melvin 

were both stranded “on the breakers at* 

Cape Romain” and proceeded to find the 

passengers heading out on the light keeper’s boat, from which they transferred to 

Atalanta (Charleston News and Courier 

29 March 1876:4). 

On both the 1859 and 1883 charts, the 

southern tip of Cape Island appears to be 

less than 1⁄2 mile wide from west to east. A 

1⁄2-square-mile box may be drawn that incorporates the cape as well as a portion of 

the breakers and shoals; this zone is the best 

guess for the scene of Planter’s beaching. 

Remote sensing by magnetometer depends on metal to provide a “hit” or reading. Because most of Planter’s engine 

equipment was salvaged, it is unknown 

what distribution or strength of magnetic 

signature might be expected in a magnetometer survey. However, at the time of 

salvage there was no mention of the salvage or sale of the iron boilers. Assuming the boilers were left in place and were 

not destroyed by subsequent storms, they 

would likely provide material for a substantial magnetic signature.

(not shown) revealed a temporary closure and joining with Lighthouse Island’s 

southern shore.

The final cumulative overlay of all of 

the preceding charts, illustrated in Figure

13, shows the total cape migration since 

the printing of the 1883 chart (green), 

which appears to be consistent with the 

1878 map. The overlay presents the charts 

from 1859 (white), 1883 (blue) and 2012 

(black) with the 2011 satellite image. The 

present topography is evident in the satellite layer. The significant references on 

these maps are the location of the south 

end of the Cape, the channel between the 

islands, and the presence of breakers.

As noted, these images were all georectified using the twin lighthouses on 

Lighthouse Island. They illustrate the 

rapid shift in sedimentation through time 

which has been attributed to the confluence of man-made and natural events. 

The 1939 damming of the Santee River 

deprived the barrier islands of a sand 

source, and in 1989 Hurricane Hugo 

caused a great deal of erosion. Hurricane 

Bertha in 1996 also reopened the channel 

between the islands and welded the western spur of Cape Island onto Lighthouse 

Island (Raynor 2009:25-27). 

Discussion 

The 3 April 1876 Charleston Courier 

reported Carrie Melvin as “being on the 

breakers” as well as “stuck heavily on the 

beach.” The May 30 paper said that “she 

was forced ashore on the sand banks of that 

reef” and was “high up on the shoal.” This 

suggests the schooner was either on the 

cape’s beach or on the shoals and breakers 

just to the south of the cape. The 1859 map 

also shows exposed sand shoals offshore. 

When Planter attempted to tow Melvin off the first day, the 29 March Courier 

noted that Planter moved the schooner 

“towards the channel,” suggesting the 

certain existence of a channel between 

the two islands (1876:4). Planter then 

“struck on the shoal” and sprang a leak, 

and the captain decided to “run her on the 

beach.” This description, too, matches 

with the charts and suggests the vessel 

was beached on Cape Island’s southern 

tip. Finally, the pilot boat Atalanta heard 

Figure 12. Cape Romain, 2011 satellite image. Figure 13. Overlay of 1859 (white), 1883 (blue) and 2012 (black) charts with 

2011 satellite image.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm ServiceNOAA
13The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

Figure 15. Original and extended survey area with asrun track lines, 2006 NOAA Chart.

Based on the historical and cartographic 

research, an area of highest probability was 

identified off Cape Romain (Figure 14). 

Once on site with the survey vessel that 

area was extended to the east and north to 

cover more of the historic surf zone. Survey 

lines laid out in the initial area were extended into the new area. With the exception of 

shoals where water was constantly breaking, both areas were surveyed (Figure 15).

Remote-Sensing Survey 

Methodology

To reliably identify the potential remains of Planter, project personnel 

conducted a systematic remote-sensing 

survey aboard the Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) 25-foot Parker power boat. 

The survey vessel was equipped with a 

navigation computer operating HYPACK 

survey software, HYPACK being a navigation and data collection program. During the survey, the project staff employed 

both magnetic and acoustic remote sensing. This combination of remote-sensing 

tools represents the state of the art in 

location technology to find submerged 

cultural resources and offers the most 

The Search for Planter’s Remains

reliable and cost-effective method to locate and identify significant targets. Data 

collection was controlled using a differential global positioning system (DGPS). 

DGPS produces highly accurate coordinates necessary to support a sophisticated 

navigation program and assure reliable 

target location.

Magnetic Remote Sensing

A GEOMETRICS G-881 marine cesium magnetometer capable of plus or 

minus 0.001 gamma resolution was employed to collect magnetic data during 

the survey. To produce a comprehensive 

magnetic record, data was collected at 

2Hz. Due to shoals within the project area 

the magnetometer sensor was towed just 

below the water surface at a speed of approximately three to four knots. Magnetic 

data were recorded as a data file associated with the computer navigation system. 

Data from the survey were contour-plotted using QUICKSURF computer software to facilitate each anomaly’s location 

and to define target signature characteristics. All magnetic data were correlated 

with the acoustic remote-sensing records.

Acoustic Remote Sensing

A 445/900 kHz KLEIN 3900 digital 

side-scan sonar (interfaced with SONARPRO data acquisition software) was 

employed to collect acoustic data in the 

survey area (Figure 16). Due to shoals occurring within the project area, the sidescan sonar transducer was deployed and 

maintained 3 to 5 feet below the water surface. Acoustic data were collected using a 

range scale of 50 meters to provide sufficient coverage and high-target signature 

definition. Acoustic data were recorded as 

a digital file with SONARPRO and tied to 

the magnetic and positioning data by the 

computer navigation system. These data 

were then imported into CHESAPEAKE 

TECHNOLOGY SONARWIZ.MAP for 

additional review and to create a mosaic.

Positioning System

A TRIMBLE AgGPS was used to control navigation and data collection in the 

survey area. That system has an accuracy 

of plus or minus 3 feet and can be used 

to generate highly accurate coordinates 

for the computer navigation system. The 

DGPS was employed in conjunction 

Figure 14. High-probability or “best guess” location for 

Planter based on historical and cartographic research.

Figure 16. Launching the EG&G GEOMETRICS G-881 

cesium vapor magnetometer.

NOAATidewater Atlantic ResearchTidewater Atlantic Research
14Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

with an onboard Compaq laptop loaded 

with HYPACK (the navigation and data 

collection program). All magnetic and 

acoustic records were tied to positioning 

events generated by HYPACK. Positioning data generated by the navigation system were tied to magnetometer records 

by regular annotations to facilitate target 

location and anomaly analysis. All data 

were plotted to South Carolina State 

Plane Coordinate System, NAD 83, U.S. 

Survey Foot.

Data Analysis

To ensure reliable target identification 

and assessment, analysis of the magnetic 

and acoustic data was carried out as it was 

generated. Using QUICKSURF contouring software, magnetic data generated 

during the survey were contour-plotted at 

5-gamma intervals for analysis and accurate location of magnetic anomalies. The 

magnetic data were examined for anomalies that were isolated and analyzed in 

accordance with intensity, duration, areal extent and signature characteristics. 

Sonar records were analyzed to identify 

targets on the basis of configuration, areal extent, target intensity and contrast 

with background, elevation and shadow 

image, and were also reviewed for possible association with identified magnetic 

anomalies.

Data generated by the remote-sensing 

equipment were developed to support an 

assessment of each magnetic and acoustic 

signature. Analysis of each target signature included consideration of magnetic 

and sonar signature characteristics previously demonstrated to be reliable indicators of historically significant submerged 

cultural resources. Assessment of each 

target included recommendations for additional investigation to determine the 

exact nature of the cultural material generating the signature and its potential National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

significance. A magnetic contour map of 

the survey area was produced to aid in the 

analysis of each target.

Description of Findings

Analysis of the remote-sensing data 

generated during the survey identified a 

total of 26 magnetic anomalies (Figure 17 

& Appendix A). Twenty-three individual 

anomalies lack the signature characteristics and spatial associations suggestive of 

more complex shipwreck material. These 

signatures are likely generated by debris 

Figure 17. Magnetic Contour Map of survey area (Coordinates redacted).

Tidewater Atlantic Research
15The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

such as fish and crab traps, pipes, smalldiameter rods, cable, wire rope, chain, 

and small boat anchors.

One cluster composed of 3 individual 

magnetic anomalies (anomalies 2, 3, and 

4), has signature characteristics consistent with shipwreck material or other 

potentially significant submerged cultural resources. That cluster is located in 

the vicinity of the Cape Romain shoreline where it lay at the time Planter was 

beached and most of the machinery salvaged. The cluster represents the only 

site that appears to have a potential association with Planter in the area surveyed. 

For that reason the anomaly concentration was recommended for additional 

investigation. 

Analysis of the sonar data confirmed 

that nothing associated with the anomaly cluster was exposed on the bottom 

surface (Figure 18); for that reason, additional investigation to identify material generating the magnetic signatures 

would have to be designed around probing and excavation.

Anomaly Assessment Probing

Testing the high-potential anomaly 

cluster in the Planter survey area extension was initially carried out aboard a 

24-foot Privateer vessel fitted out for hydraulic probing and excavation. Once the 

anomaly cluster location was identified, 

a hand-held proton-precession magnetometer was employed to refine the location of ferrous material generating the 

signatures. With those locations buoyed, 

an 11-foot hydraulic probe powered by 

a 5-horsepower centrifugal pump was 

used to assess the nature of material generating the signatures and determine the 

depth of overburden. Due to engine problems with the 24-foot Privateer, another 

vessel provided by archaeologist Ralph 

Wilbanks was used to support on-site investigation on the second day of anomaly 

investigation.

The on-site investigation was scheduled around low tide in the survey area. 

Low tide provided a window of approximately two hours when in-water magnetometry and probing could be carried out 

effectively; before and after that window, 

both operations would be complicated by 

current running over the shoal. 

Probing on the anomaly cluster focused on the area of highest magnetic 

intensity. Probing to 11 feet below the 

bottom surface failed in most locations Tidewater Atlantic Research

Figure 18. Sonar Coverage Mosaic of survey area (Coordinates redacted).
16Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

to make contact with material generating 

the signatures; however, positive contact 

was made at two sites (Figure 19). Both 

of those contacts were found to be metal 

9 feet below the bottom surface. More 

intensive probing in those contacts confirmed that material within 9 feet of the 

bottom surface was small or fragmentary 

and did not, at that level, appear to represent large structures such as boilers. 

No evidence of wood hull structure was 

identified.

Figure 19. Probe locations at the high-priority anomaly cluster (Cooridnates redacted).

Tidewater Atlantic Research
17The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

Historical and cartographic research 

identified a high-priority area for the 

remote-sensing survey designed to identify the surviving remains of the steamer 

Planter.

That area was expanded in the field to include additional survey lines east and north 

of the original area that would include more 

of the Cape Romain shoreline identified in 

the 1883 Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart. 

Analysis of the magnetometer data identified a total of 26 individual anomalies in 

the combined survey areas. While 23 of 

those anomalies appear to represent debris 

(such as traps, pipes, rods, cable, wire rope, 

chain, small boat anchors and the like), one 

cluster composed of 3 individual anomalies has signature characteristics consistent 

with shipwreck material and could be associated with the Planter remains. 

The high-priority anomaly cluster is located in the vicinity of the 1883 Cape Romain shoreline at the approximate time that 

Planter was beached and the machinery 

salvaged. The cluster represents the only 

site in the area surveyed that appears to 

have a potential association with Planter. 

Probing to 11 feet on the site of highest 

magnetic intensity identified metal at two 

locations 9 feet below the bottom surface. 

More intensive probing in those contacts 

confirmed that metal within range of the 

probe consisted of small objects or small 

elements of material lying deeper in the 

sediments. Material contacted did not appear to represent large structures such as 

boilers, and no evidence of wood possibly 

representing hull structure was identified.

Based on the data generated by remote 

sensing and target testing it is apparent 

that the cluster of anomalies has a significant potential for association with the 

remains of Planter, however, confirmation will require additional investigation. 

That research could be focused on either 

or both of two avenues of investigation. 

Conduct a survey to determine if there 

are additional high-potential anomalies 

in the vicinity of the historic Cape Romain shoreline. The absence of additional 

high-potential anomalies in the area may 

indicate that the anomaly cluster under 

investigation has an even higher probable 

association with Planter. 

The second approach would be to focus 

on exposing material at the anomaly cluster 

under investigation, an approach that could 

identify material generating the signatures 

and possibly confirm that it represents 

Planter’s remains. Research could focus on 

any surviving steam machinery, associated 

hull remains and diagnostic artifacts. 

Since the early 1980s, shipwreck sites 

in shallow-water beach environments 

have increasingly interested archaeological and geomorphological investigators. 

Well-known examples of sites include 

wrecks wherein dynamic surf has preserved a nearly intact vessel; “buoyant 

hull fractures,” in which an intact hull 

breaks up on a beach and its components 

are buried; or “buoyant structures” in 

which pieces of a hull wash in from offshore and are deposited and buried on 

a beach (Delgado 1997:58). This type 

of site has been archaeologically documented on the shores of Massachusetts 

(Cape Cod), North Carolina (Cape Hatteras), Alabama (Fort Morgan), California (Channel Islands and Ocean Beach 

in San Francisco), notably when storm 

events environmentally have exposed the 

previously buried hull or structure on a 

beach or in the intertidal zone. In this type 

of site, a probable comparative example 

for Planter would be the 1913 wreck of 

the wooden-hulled steam schooner Pomo

in Drakes Bay, California (Archaeological documentation of the site was done as 

part of a comprehensive survey of the bay 

by the National Park Service in 1982). A 

series of magnetic anomalies off Limantour Spit in the bay and on the spit itself 

were determined to be a cluster of wooden 

hull remains and steel and iron machinery 

from the wreck of Pomo, exposed when 

beach erosion stripped much of the sand 

from the spit in the winter of 1982-1983. 

The main portion of the wreck included 

the bottom portion of the hull with the 

engine attached to it (Murphy 1984:179-

184). Given that Planter was lost in similar conditions, the formation of the Pomo

site suggests the same archaeological signature for Planter, which would be consistent with the apparent characteristics of 

the probed anomalies.

Due to environmental conditions at the 

site, additional investigation to expose 

machinery and hull remains will have 

to be designed to mitigate the effects of 

sediment depth and tides. Traditional excavation employing induction dredges or 

airlifts will not likely produce the desired 

results. To compensate for the environment, consideration should be given to 

excavation with propeller wash systems 

that are capable of removing more sediment than tidal currents can replace. A 

second approach might be a jack-up platform equipped with industrial-scale induction dredges or airlifts. Both systems 

exist and have been employed in salvage 

operations in similar environments.

While there is a professional aversion 

to employing industrial techniques, this 

site environment virtually demands the 

controlled use of those means. Planter’s

remains represent a vessel that has been 

heavily salvaged and subjected to surf and 

some breakup before burial in sand. Unlike Pomo, which lay on a beach/intertidConclusions and Recommendations
18Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

al zone that has not substantially changed 

since 1913, Planter wrecked in a beach 

and intertidal zone that has now shifted 

offshore due to environmental change. 

The surviving remains of Planter are now 

on an offshore shoal covered by as much 

as 10 feet of sterile overburden and water. 

With proper supervision, industrial means 

can be employed to efficiently reach diagnostic material that could identify the 

wreck without unacceptable damage to 

the surviving remains. 

Systematic probing at the target site is 

recommended as the first course of action. 

Hydraulic probing to depths of 20 feet or 

more could identify additional structure, 

including the boilers. Additional probing could produce a more comprehensive 

plan of the distribution of surviving structure at the site and more precisely locate 

productive areas for excavation. Systematic hydraulic probing can be carried out 

much less expensively than excavation 

regardless of the methodology employed 

to remove sediment. 

The question now is one of what comes 

next. Planter is a vessel whose brief career 

captured the attention of the nation due to 

the heroic actions of Robert Smalls. The 

150-year distance from the epic escape 

from slavery by those on board Planter

has not diminished the importance of the 

event, the personalities or the ship; the 

story embodied by Robert Smalls and 

Planter is timeless. The fragmented, buried remains of Planter, lying under the 

sand and sea off Cape Romain, represent 

that story as a surviving entity that links 

the present day to the events of 1862. The 

Planter remains, lost in 1876 and subsequently broken and buried by the power 

of the sea, are not as visible or intact as the 

wreck of Titanic, or other wrecked vessels 

even more substantially intact. Therefore 

the question of further archaeological intervention on the site to determine exactly 

which anomalies represent Planter’s shattered wood and twisted iron becomes a 

discussion of exactly what might be found 

and how well it might represent the story 

of that brave and well-planned escape 

from Charleston Harbor. 

NOAA’s Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries is passing on to the State of 

South Carolina the data and the location 

of the anomalies we believe to be Planter; 

the decision on how to proceed will be 

theirs to make. Does that mean excavation and recovery, or does it mean marking this spot on the map and noting that 

here is where Planter came to an end? 

No matter what decision is made, history 

has told a powerful tale, and the story of 

Robert Smalls and the voyage to freedom 

on Planter will live on in the hearts of all 

who cherish liberty.
19The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

References

Baltimore Sun

1861 Latest Details of the Movements at Charleston. Baltimore Sun 1 March. Baltimore, MD.

Billingsley, Andrew

2010 Yearning to Breathe Free: Robert Smalls of South Carolina and His Families. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Brown, William Wells

1867 The Negro in the American Rebellion; His Heroism and His Fidelity. Lee & Shepard, Boston.

Charleston Daily Courier

1862 No Title. Charleston Daily Courier 15 May. Charleston SC.

Charleston Courier Tri-Weekly

1860 Ferguson’s Line of Steamers: Advertisement. Charleston Courier Tri-Weekly 9 August. Charleston SC.

1860 New Steamer. Charleston Courier Tri-Weekly 14 August. Charleston SC.

1860 The Foundry and Iron Works of Cameron & Co. Charleston Courier Tri-Weekly 23 August. Charleston SC.

1865 Lee’s Surrender-Raising the Flag on Sumter-The Naval Demonstration. Courier Tri-Weekly 15 April. Charleston SC.

Charleston Daily News

1872 For Gardner’s Bluff: Advertisement. 27 May. Charleston SC.

Charleston News and Courier

1876 Arrival of the Pilot Boat Atalanta. Charleston Courier 29 March: 4. Charleston SC.

1876 Loss of the Steamer Planter. Charleston Courier 29 March: 4. Charleston SC.

1876 The Steamer Planter. Charleston Courier 1 April: 4. Charleston SC.

1876 The Schooner Carrie Melvin. Charleston Courier 3 April: 4. Charleston SC.

1876 The Schr. Carrie Melvin. Charleston Courier 30 May: 4. Charleston SC.

1876 Materials Saved From the Steamer Planter: Advertisement. Charleston Courier 17 July: 4. Charleston SC.

Delgado, James

1997 Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

Elwell, Capt.J.J., Army Quartermaster

1862 Letter to General Brannan. Manuscript, Vessel File 1403 (Planter Box), Record Group 92, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Flinn, John J.

1875 Master oaths. Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation. RG 41, National Archives, Washington D.C.

French, Justus Clement

1865 The Trip of the Steamer Oceanus to Fort Sumter and Charleston, S.C. “The Union” Steam Printing House, Brooklyn.

Greenlee, Marcia M.

1973 National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form, Robert Smalls House, Beaufort, South Carolina. December 1973.

Harper’s Weekly

1861 The Burning of Charleston. Harper’s Weekly 28 December. New York NY

1862 The Steamer Planter and Her Captor. Harper’s Weekly, 14 June. New York NY.
20Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

House of Representatives

1883 Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives for the Second Session of the Forty-Seventh Congress. 1882-

’83. Vol. 1, Report No. 1887. Authorizing the President to Place Robert Smalls on the Retired List of the Navy. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Leslie, Frank

1893 The soldier in our Civil War: a pictorial history of the conflict 1861 – 1865, illustrating the valor of the soldiers as displayed 

on the battle field. Stanley Bradley, New York.

Low, (?), Bvt. Lt. Col A.G.M.

1866 Letter to General M.C. Meigs, Quartermaster General. Manuscript, Vessel File 1403 (Planter Box), Record Group 92, 

National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Macek, John NOAA, cartographer for NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey

2010 Personal communication.

Macon Telegraph

1861 The Charleston Blockade. Macon Telegraph 17 July, Macon. GA.

1862 The War on the Seacoast. Macon Telegraph 1 January, Macon. GA.

Manifest of Passengers on board Steamer “Planter.” 

1865 Multiple manifests between July 1865 through 15 November 1865. Vessel File 1403 (Planter Box) RG 92, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Miller, Edward A. Jr.

1995 Gullah Statesman: Robert Smalls From Slavery to Congress, 1839-1915. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Milligan, Wm. National Iron Armor and Shipbuilding Co

1864 Letters (2) to Capt. Chas. D. Schmidt, Quartermaster. Manuscript, Vessel File 1403 (Planter Box), Record Group 92, 

National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Mitchell, C. Bradford, ed.

1975 Merchant Steam Vessels of the United States, 1790-1868 (“The Lytle-Holdcamper List.” Steamship Historical Society of 

America, Inc. Staten Island.

Moore, Helen Boulware (Descendent of Robert Smalls)

2012a Personal communication (email) with Margo Jackson (NOAA) 21 September 2012.

2012b Personal communication with Bruce Terrell (NOAA) 9 September 2012.

Murphy, Larry

1984 Submerged Cultural Resources Survey: Portions of Point Reyes National Seashore and Point Reyes-Farallon Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary. Submerged Resources Center Professional Report No. 2, National Park Service, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico.

New York Herald

1862 Heroism of Nine Colored Men. New York Herald 18 May. New York NY

New York Times

1862 The Steamer Planter. New York Times 15 August. New York, NY

1862 Hero Of the Planter. New York Times 3 October. New York NY

1863 News From Fortress Monroe. New York Times 29 July. New York NY

Nichols, James M.

1886 Perry’s Saints or The Fighting Parson’s Regiment in the War of the Rebellion. D. Lothrop and Company, Boston. http://

www.generalatomic.com/PerrysSaints/index.html

NOAA Office of the Coast Survey

Various survey and navigation charts as found on the Office of Coast Survey Historical Map and Chart Image Catalog, 

http://historicalcharts.noaa.gov/historicals/search_attributes 

Ochiai, Akiko

2001 The Port Royal Experiment Revisited: Northern Visions of Reconstruction and the Land Question, The New England 

Quarterly: 94-117.

Raynor, Bob

2009 Tracing the Cape Romain Archipelago. The History Press, Charleston.
21The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

Reef, Catherine

2010 African Americans in the Military. Facts on File, Inc. New York.

Rose, Willie L.

1964 Rehearsal for Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment. Oxford University Press, New York.

Salem Weekly

1862 A Well-kept Log. Salem Weekly 19 June. Salem, Massachusetts.

Savannah Morning News

1871 No title: Savannah Morning News 6 July. Savannah GA.

Sholes, A.E. and C.F. Weatherbe

1882 Sholes Directory of the City of Charleston. Sholes & Co. Charleston.

Simmons, Rev. William J. D.D.

1887 Men of Mark: Eminent, Progressive and Rising. Geo. M. Rewell & Co., Cleveland.

Thomas, C. W. Bvt. Lieut Col & Chf QM

1866 Letter to General M.C. Meigs, Quartermaster General. Manuscript, Planter Box, Record Group 92, National Archives, 

Washington, D.C.

United States. War Department

1885 Official records of the Union and Confederate Armies. (ORA) Washington, Gov’t. Printing Office.

United States. Naval War Records Office 

1921 Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion. (ORN) Washington, Govt. Printing 

Office. 

The United States Army and Navy Journal and Gazette of the Regular and Volunteer Forces (Army and Navy Journal), 26 August 1866. Volume III no. 1, 1865-’66: 326.

United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Satellite image, Cape Romain, South Carolina, June 2011.

Uya, Okun Edet

1971 From Slavery to Public Service: Robert Smalls, 1839-1915. Oxford University Press, New York.

Wheeler, Henry W. USA

1865 Letters (3) to Captain John R. Jennings, Army Quartermaster, Philadelphia, PA. Manuscript, Planter Box, Record Group 

92, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Whiting, S.B. Supt.

1864 Letter to Chas. D. Schmidt, Capt. and Asst. Quartermaster, Philadelphia, PA. Manuscript, Planter Box, Record Group 

92, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Wreck Report, Planter

1876 5 April 1876. Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation. RG 41, National Archives, Washington D.C.

Photographs

Library of Congress

Robert Smalls, 1870s. By Matthew Brady

Charleston Boats at 1865 Ceremony. 

Navy History and Heritage Command

Keokuk Sinking. NH58751

Planter at Georgetown. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-civil/civsh-p/Planter.htm

New York Public Library

Planter at Charleston Harbor. Digital ID G92F031_014F
22Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

Appendix A

Magnetic Target Table

All coordinates South Carolina State Plane, NAD 83, U.S. Survey Foot

Map 

DesignationLine Target 

Number Characteristics

Intensity 

(gammas)

Duration 

(feet)

X Y Recommendation

1 1 1 Dipolar 2 59 2508013.7 429131.0 None

2 9 1 Dipolar 42 346 2507603.7 428532.6 Additional Investigation

3 8 1 Multicomponent 515 215 2507566.7 428537.2 Additional Investigation

4 11 1 Multicomponent 32 239 2507532.5 428525.7 Additional Investigation

5 23 1 Dipolar 5 174 2506923.8 431342.9 None

6 25 1 Dipolar 8 126 2506813.6 431338.5 None

7 25 2 Negative Monopolar 10 160 2506808.6 428483.8 None

8 35 1 Dipolar 3 64 2506328.8 429530.4 None

9 35 2 Dipolar 3 99 2506306.0 429135.0 None

10 36 1 Dipolar 3 67 2506251.8 432401.8 None

11 36 2 Dipolar 90 53 2505807.3 429620.5 None

12 57 1 Dipolar 16 115 2505231.8 428645.3 None

13 57 2 Negative Monopolar 6 118 2505239.5 428469.9 None

14 63 1 Positive Monopolar 4 127 2504901.6 429614.1 None

15 63 2 Dipolar 9 63 2504921.4 428811.2 None

16 73 1 Dipolar 15 88 2504360.2 428099.5 None

17 79 1 Dipolar 2 35 2504128.0 429796.6 None

18 79 2 Negative Monopolar 9 61 2504106.1 428471.6 None

19 55 1 Dipolar 3 69 2505310.9 430385.8 None

20 55 2 Positive Monopolar 7 33 2505325.7 428635.2 None

21 51 1 Dipolar 2 49 2505512.5 429180.5 None

22 51 2 Dipolar 29 106 2505535.3 428739.8 None

23 49 1 Positive Monopolar 3 18 2505571.9 428774.4 None

24 47 1 Dipolar 36 107 2505703.5 429338.4 None

25 39 1 Dipolar 15 76 2506104.5 430533.5 None

26 19 1 Dipolar 5 103 2507109.3 429028.3 None
23The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

Appendix B

Cape Romain Shipwrecks

Vessel 

Name

Date of 

Loss

Type of 

Vessel Casualty Location Notes Source

Unidentified 1520 Spanish nao "near Cape Romain" Spanish nao under Captain Lucas 

Vazquez de Ayllon. Marx

Martha 1751 Scottish 

merchantman "on Cape Romain" Captain Shea, arriving from Canary Islands. Marx

Unidentified 17 Feb 

1759

Coasting 

Schooner Raccoon Keys from Santee, belonging to Col. Horry Raynor

Judith 1759 English 

merchantman "on Cape Romain" Captain Martin; sailing from North Carolina to England. Marx

Nancy 1775 English 

merchantman

"several leagues north 

of Charleston"

Captain Cumminham; sailing from 

London to North Carolina Marx

America 1788 ship "off Cape Romain"

Unidentified Sept 

1804 ship "on Cape Romain" Captain Bunker http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/history/index.html

Spring August 

1815 English ship "on Cape Romain Shoals"

Captain Smith, sailing Liverpool to 

Wilmington. Marx

Spring 1815 brig Raccoon Keys Captain Job Colcock Smith, Raynor

Ino 7 March 

1815 ship "near Cape Romain", near Racoon Key

Owned by Wm. Gray, Boston. British 

frigate chased ship onto shoals and 

impressed 2 crew. Vessel broke up 

after abandonment by crew.

Niles Weekly Register

Diamond 1816 Spanish pirate 

schooner

"outer shoal of Cape 

Romain" Salvaged by Dr. E. Lee Spence http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2019751&id=1109236999

Spey 28 Nov 

1840

British navy 

packet

"wrecked on Racoon 

Key" Clowes

Chase 26 April 

1862 schooner "on Racoon Key" Chased onto reef by USS Onward. Gaines

United 

States

6 April 

1881 steamer "went ashore near Cape Romain" NY Times, 7 April 1881

Unidentified 1890s barge "off Cape Romain" 24 Civil War-era cannon found on barge 

remains

http://www.oregongenealogy.com/

baker/baker/memorial_cannon.htm

Ozama 21 Nov

1894 steamer "Sank off Cape Romain"

Formerly steamer Craigillion built in 

Scotland, 1881; sank in 6 fathoms of 

water

http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/

clydeline.htm

William M. 

Bird

1 Nov

1899 schooner "off Cape Romain" Appletons

Leif 

Erickson Feb-05 Norwegian freighter Bulls Bay 84' depth http://www.charlestondiving.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t1337.html
24Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1 The Search For Planter

Cape Romain Shipwrecks Sources

1899 Appletons’ Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 

1899. Third Series, vol. IV. D. Appleton and Company, New York.

Charleston Courier, Thursday, October 2, 1806. Cited at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/

Landsea/history/index.html (Capt. Bunker 1804)

Charleston Daily News 10 Oct 1870

Clowes, Wm. Laird

1901 The Royal Navy; a History From Early Times Until the Present. Vol 7, p. 505 

Sampson Low, Marston & Co., London.

Gaines, W. Craig

2008 Encyclopedia of Civil War Shipwrecks. LSU Press, Baton Rouge. P.144.

Keowee Curior 9 Nov 1899

Marx, Robert F. 

1987 Shipwrecks of the Americas. Dover Publications Inc., New York.

Newell, O. Wright, Jr.

1978 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge. 2 vol. 

New World Research, New Orleans, La.

Niles Weekly Register, from March to September, 1815

1815 - vol VIII. p. 110 Baltimore.

Raynor, Robert

2008 Tracing the Cape Romain Archipelago, History Press, Charleston

The Watchman and Southron Sumter, South Carolina 28 October 1916

http://www.charlestondiving.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t1337.html 

(Leif Erickson)

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2019751&id=1109236999

(Diamond 1816, E. Lee Spence Facebook page)

http://www.oregongenealogy.com/baker/baker/memorial_cannon.htm

http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/clydeline.htm

(Ozama)
25The Search For Planter Maritime Heritage Program Series: Number 1

Maritime Heritage

NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuaries

National marine sanctuaries are living classrooms where people can see, touch and learn about our nation’s maritime heritage treasures.

Our mission is to protect, promote and explore our maritime heritage ghrough a national program embracing heritage resources in 

our evolving coastal, marine and Great Lakes stewardship.

www.MaritimeHeritage.NOAA.gov

• Current Project Updates

• Expedition Reports

• Field Updates

Did You Know?

• Maritime heritage resources are physical, such as historic shipwrecks and prehistoric archaeological sites, as well as archival, 

including oral histories, traditional seafaring and the knowledge of traditional cultures.

• The Maritime Heritage Program documents, inventories and protects over 300 known shipwrecks and prehistoric sites in our 

sanctuaries.

• Maritime heritage resources play a major role in demonstrating the relevance of the oceans to our past, present and future lives.

Program Highlights

Exciting Expeditions

Archaeologists and historians study sanctuary maritime resources including the shipwrecks of Thunder Bay, the cultural sites at the 

Olympic Coast and the search for the lost Civil War submarine Alligator.

State of the Art Technology

Side scan sonar, magnetometers, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and mixed-gas diving provide the technical support for cutting-edge research and discoveries.

Preservation Through Education

As part of responsible stewardship, the Maritime Heritage Program designs and implements a variety of programs to educated the 

public about the importance of protecting and preserving our maritime past.

Maritime Heritage Program, National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring MD 20910

301-713-3125
The National Marine Sanctuary System

The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, serves as the trustee for a system of 14 marine protected areas encompassing more than 170,000 square miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters. The 13 national marine 

sanctuaries and one marine national monument within the National Marine Sanctuary System represent areas of America’s ocean and Great 

Lakes environment that are of special national significance. Within their waters, giant humpback whales breed and calve their young, coral 

colonies flourish, and shipwrecks tell stories of our maritime history. Habitats include beautiful coral reefs, lush kelp forests, whale migrations 

corridors, spectacular deep-sea canyons, and underwater archaeological sites. These special places also provide homes to thousands of 

unique or endangered species and are important to America’s cultural heritage. Sites range in size from one square mile to almost 140,000 

square miles and serve as natural classrooms, cherished recreational spots, and are home to valuable commercial industries.

The Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries

is part of NOAA’s 

National Ocean Service.

Vision - People value 

marine sanctuaries as treasured 

places protected for future 

generations.

Mission - To serve as the 

trustee for the nation’s system of 

marine protected areas to conserve, protect and enhance their 

biodiversity, ecological integrity 

and cultural legacy.