A few days back, I posted about Widow Blakely, a 7.5-inch rifled gun imported from England and used by the Confederates in defense of Vicksburg. I originally used this photo to illustrate the post:
The photo is often captioned as “Whistling Dick” of Vicksburg fame, which it is not. However, as reader D. Dickens pointed out, it is not the “Widow Blakely” either! A mistake which I should have avoided simply by referring back to my original notes on this photo!
Alas, having found myself spinning even more confusion into what is already a confusing story, I pulled the image out of the post – I’d already seen where my miss-identification was carried onto another forum. That said, I need to clear this up!
The gun in the photo, which you see reproduced often, is a 32-pdr Navy Gun. The same gun appears in other wartime photos:
Here, from my archive of 35mm photos, is a similar gun posted outside the Vicksburg visitor center (in the 1990s, however the gun was on a siege carriage at some point):
Notice the loop cascabel, rear sight arrangement, band extending back to the rear sight, the front sight block over the trunnions, and the truncated muzzle. This gun has marks indicating proofing in 1849.
In Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War, Historian Warren Ripley noted this particular gun came to the park from a Vicksburg cemetery which it had guarded since at least 1874. Although provenance is not always enough to establish fact, three tons is a lot to move about. I’ve never researched the full history of the gun, but believe there’s enough similarities between the wartime photos and the gun located at Vicksburg today to apply a “very likely” tag here.
There are several “sisters” to this gun, which I shall christen “Miss Identified.” One sister is at Fort Branch, North Carolina:
Another “sister” is at the Washington Navy Yard:
That particular gun was captured by the US Navy on board the CSS Teaser in July 1862. And that 32-pdr is right next to the Widow Blakely’s sister…
…affording me a rather nice segue!
We can say the bands on the Widow Blakely and “Miss Identify” are of two different types of construction. The Blakely’s were done in England of course. The 32-pdr bands were done by the Confederacy, likely Tredegar in all three cases. In fact, there’s good reason to believe the 32-pdrs were among those guns captured at Gosport Navy Yard in April 1861.
But the muzzle of the two guns – Blakely and “Miss Identify” – which are similar enough to fool even this old cannon hunter. Both have a few feet trimmed off to include the muzzle swell. Because both guns were damaged at Vicksburg (or at least in the vicinity of Vicksburg), very likely the work was done by a local vendor. If so, the odds on favorite is A.M. Paxton & Company. I’ve mentioned that firm in connection with finishing done on Quinby & Robinson guns. While the firm of A.B. Reading and Brothers sent most of their machinery to Georgia well before the siege of Vicksburg, Paxton apparently retained enough for work supporting the besieged garrison.
That’s $2,000 for “Foundry work” through July 4, 1863. Paxton’s account was not completely settled, even a year later.
I think we can establish, with little doubt, that Widow Blakely and “Miss Identify” were at Vicksburg at the time of the garrison’s surrender. And the two guns, with only slight hesitation in regard to the 32-pdr, are at Vicksburg today. But what about “Richard”… I mean Whistling Dick?
First, let us agree beyond a shadow of a doubt, the wartime photos captioned “Whistling Dick” are indeed NOT that famous gun. The similarities between the gun in the photos and the surviving 32-pdar are far too close. And we can rule out “Richard” being a 32-pdr. In his official report of the siege, Major Samuel Lockett gave a very precise identification of the type of gun (emphasis added):
On the 29th, the usual repairs and improvements continued along the whole line: a new battery made in rear of the line left of Hall’s Ferry road; the new battery in rear of General Lee improved, and “Whistling Dick” (an 18-pounder rifled piece) put in position, and a new battery started in rear of General Moore’s center, but the working party was driven off by the enemy’s sharpshooters, and the work stopped.
While not attributing a name to the piece, Colonel Edward Higgins report indicates only one rifled 18-pdr was in the Vicksburg siege lines. That 18-pdr was temporarily disabled on May 22, at the same time the Widow Blakely suffered its burst muzzle (go figure!). The 18-pdr was repaired and, as Lockett indicated, sent from the water batteries to reinforce the siege lines on May 28, 1863.
Do we have photos of Whistling Dick? Not that I know of. Lack of a post-surrender photo would lend credence to a Confederate veteran’s 1900 account. Alfred Leach claimed the gun was dumped in the Mississippi the night before the official surrender. Why, with over a hundred other guns in the lines, this particular gun was dumped, I cannot say.
Alternatively, I would offer that, as with so many other weapons captured at Vicksburg, the rifled 18-pdr might have remained in the city. Federals later used the 10-inch columbiads, 32-pdr smoothbores, and other smaller pieces in the city garrison lines. However weapons requiring non-standard projectiles – such as the Widow Blakely, Whistling Dick, and “Miss Identify” – were shunted to the side. The Widow went to West Point, was incorrectly cited as Whistling Dick, until corrected in the 1950s. “Miss Identify,” as mentioned above, probably stayed in Vicksburg guarding a cemetery until relocated to the park in the 1960s. But “Richard” is lost to the ages. A famous gun, and a rare 18-pdr siege gun at that (only one cataloged survivor of the type today), discarded without a trace.
So there you have it. My penance for an earlier mistake with the wartime photo. Let us remove the confusion about Whistling Dick, Widow Blakely, and that “other” gun.
Sources: See Ripley, Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War (Forth Edition), pages 30-32. Ripley cited Edwin Bearss, “The Vicksburg River Defenses and the Enigma of Whistling Dick” from The Journal of Mississippi History, Vol. XIX, No. 1, January 1957, page 21.