Me too !

Yeah good try, but you need lots more drill( practice ) yeah I could’ve done better! I know a 6 year old little girl my buddy’s daughter, who could done a much clearer job w a phone camera video! 😅 be advised , not offended, learn to improve, for the future. Or get some help.

I’m fairly sure Dr Cussler is well-recognized for his role in discovering Hunly’s final resting place…. It’s in his bio in the back of every book he wrote (well, maybe post-2001 anyway) and those other two clowns that tried to continue the NUMA books after the hood Dr retired from writing. (My opinion) I had the opportunity to correspond with Dr Cussler before his death about his love of classic dive watches, including D. Pitt’s famous Doxa Sub300. He was VERY well spoken/read (of course) and a delight to speak with.

He didn't discover it though. It was first discovered and the location recorded in 1970 by diver E. Lee Spence. The discovery and location was published and well known to NUMA and Cussler in 1995. In 1978 the Hunley was placed in the National Register. This could not have happened unless the actual location was known. Spence won an admiralty suit in 1981 awarding him ownership of the wreck. NUMA and Cussler should only be credited for leading the documentation and recovery of the wreck.

What is the name of your book?

Some marvel. It was a death trap.

If you believe this video filming is a fine job, you’re missing out on good work,

That’s why I watch because I can’t see all these historical things I did see and touch her they just brought her out of the water when I seen her Them men was very brave

Thanks for sharing this very important information.

I think that everyone should brush up with their history

You probably didn't see her BEFORE she was raised, either.

The battle flag of the confederacy , stone Mountain Georgia, the statues of the Confederate generals, and the heritage of all southerners is being attacked and erased . Why not the Hunley ? The dukes of hazzard can't be shown anymore because of a flag . These symbols are monuments to the history of the southern cause and bigoted censorship .!

@@johnandkayvest4917 I think thats why they are calling it the "H.L." to save it from this bs...

@John and Kay Vest. Don’t touch my Hunley pls that is family history Hunley was my great uncle like 10x over, I don’t agree with the confederates but we need this history to sustain that way the future dosnt have to repeat the past. I’m sure if they erected a statue of H.L.Hunley itd get torn down probably which I don’t agree with tearing down confederate history yes that history is the United States worst past and history but we need a rememberance of where this nation came from and not to return to

vanscoyoc, or if you don't want to listen to what I am saying while driving there....it is not just 'traffic and driving'......

I enjoyed the ride over the bridge, and seeing where to turn.

First rule of sub school: there is NO sub school!

there

Kevin, in my video I briefly show two black objects on the floor, which are smaller pieces of the Hunley that have already received a chemical treatment. They are now being tested to see if they start to rust in the open air. If they prove to be stable, then that gives the conservation team a better idea for how long they still need to treat the main vessel before she can be displayed in the air. I believe that once that happens, the vessel and the museum contents would be relocated to a proper museum, to free up the conservation center for other projects.

Yes, very brave traitors got what they deserved

​@@paulj4155 don't be rude

The crew did not release the ballast. When found each crew member was found at their station and the levers to release the ballast sections were in the locked position. It appears there was no attempt by the crew to release the ballast and surface.

Taking down a statue is NOT erasing history. History is what it is. Its in books and museums etc. You CANT erase history! What is being done IS to no longer have monuments to HONOR men who fought FOR slavery. Keeping them is like honiring the men who fought to promote Hitler's agenda. The South fought to promote the South's agenda for slavery and that was shameful, no matter how you slice that cake. The sub is history. The statues are not....

​@@TheUglyHookerGlad they are not destroying the southern Plantations. They are good for tourism and local income. The USA should have worked together and come up with a figure of how much to pay the Plantation owners a far amount to release the slaves and send them back to Africa if they wanted.

@Kabuki Kitsune I think their status as traitors of the Union, who still seem hell bent on going back to glory, prevents that (they don't wanna talk about slavery, but they'd rather AA "know their place", not have advancements, not go to their schools, are ok with them being killed by cops, etc).

@Kabuki Kitsune Not in these times. The Left is tearing everything Confedred, Union, down

Squirley Spitmonkey, what the Hunley museum says is that the Hunley was a private venture of southern citizens, and was never requested or ultimately commissioned by the Confederates. However, as this Wikipedia entry states, ".....the [H.L. Hunley] submarine was shipped by rail to Charleston, South Carolina, arriving on 12 August 1863....... the Confederate military seized the submarine from her private builders and owners shortly after arriving, turning her over to the Confederate Army. Hunley would operate as a Confederate Army vessel from then on, although Horace Hunley, and his partners would remain involved in her further testing and operation. While sometimes referred to as CSS Hunley, she was never officially commissioned into service." So, the teacher was correct if he/she meant that the Hunley was never an official vessel of the Confederates, not owned by them. Although many people assume that the Hunley WAS an official Confederate vessel, and thus should be called "CSS Hunley", that is incorrect. It was and remains just the "H.L. Hunley".

@@youtuuba that is not what the teacher was getting at. She didn't want to give the Confederacy credit where credit is due because that's "incorrect" That's wrong think.

@@squirleyspitmonkey3926 , how do you know what the teacher was "getting at"? You said your son heard the teacher say something in his history class, which he apparently then reported to you. That is one level of 'remove' right there, and big misunderstandings occur for such disconnects. If I were you, and felt that the teacher was misrepresenting historical fact, I would: - first inform myself to make sure I know the facts...I would consult serious historical sources, and not rely on what I happen to read or hear online - I would contact the teacher and ask about it. If the teacher says your son misunderstood, I would ask the teacher to clarify the issue with the class, and ask your son whether that took place - if the teacher tells you that he/she is teaching non-factual information, or if your son reports that no clarification was given, then I would call the school superintendent and insist on investigation and remedy - If the school does not cooperate as I suggest they do, then I would consider going higher up the chain, or talking to the press.....

@@youtuuba after the second sinking General Beauregard decided the Hunley was a death trap and would not use it again. It was eventually given back to the investors. When it sank it was in the hands of the investors again. But they had a letter of marque from the Confederate government. That made the Hunley a privateer and would have paid, from the Confederate government, a reward to the investors for every ship sunk. That makes it a shop fighting for the Confederacy.

@@squirleyspitmonkey3926 nothing new. Most historians don't want to give the Hunley it's due credit either. They like to say it was "an unqualified success as it sank during the sinking of the Housatonic." But it didn't. During the civil war the US Navy conducted an official inquiry into the sinking of Housatonic. A member of the crew of the Housatonic saw a ship coming to their rescue that ran over "a blue light low on the water." That would be the signal light from the Hunley to a soldier waiting for them on the beach. A light that soldier testified to seeing. But historians have always said he lied and they never look at the US Navy court of inquiry into the attack.

Maryellenshock, what do you mean by "they"?

They found the remains of the crew, intact enough that the researchers could tell where each crew member was and in what position they were in.

youtuuba I don’t think they were feminists

@@axlyoung1218 , damned autocorrect....fixed now

They found complete skeletons (though disjointed) with some tissue and brain matter still visible. ^v^

Well, he's trying to accurately represent the history of the sub and its place in history- it never was involved with the CS Navy or commissioned with that branch- so it couldn't have been a "CSS" anything. It was a privateer boat possessed by the Army. Nobody denies what side it or it's crew was fighting for- and by extension what that meant. Nobody is "bleaching" it's history by accurately and honestly representing it.

@@seand7894 I simply posed a personal question about the motives of the Tour Guide based on my perceptions of his wording and tone. Whether or not the boat was "commisioned" into the Confederate Navy during a time of war is nothing more that navel gazing. The fact that the boat was never commissioned is simply useless information of interest only to an academic, a lawyer or , most likely, someone trying to obfuscate the issue. It is totally inconsequential to anything to do with the war. The Confederate military took control of the vessel and it killed three military crews. It's primary purpose was to sink Union shipping, which it did. Whether or not the "bleaching" of history was the intent is purely a matter of option. Based on what is taking place nationwide with regard to Confederate monuments, cemeteries and war memorials to question the motives of anyone commenting on the Confederacy is perfectly reasonable, appropriate and necessary.

William Hunter, well it was not designed or intended to have a Kawakami role....though it killed some or all of three crews, it was not supposed to be suicide mission type vehicle.

John Anderson, the museum has a couple displays that are basically cutaways or sections. They are oversized to allow people to step into them.

Two reasons. The first was the ability to bail any water that intruded into the crew compartment into the ballast tanks so it could be expelled via the ballast pump. Second, and maybe even more important was the additional volume of air now available for the crew to breathe. As tested, they would run out of air at approximately the two hour mark. Without the additional ballast tank volume, they would have run out of air much sooner. ^v^

floatsomboy, that is THE accepted theory at this time. According to the docent, all other theories were disproven by evidence found after the Hunley was raised.

I don’t believe that theory, because theory has it that the Hunley rammed the Union ship, and the Union soldiers thought the Hunley was a floating log and then realized it was an attack and tried to shoot cannons at it. Well theory has it people on the beach in Charleston saw the blue light that the Hunley was to show or shine when the mission had been completed. I believe it maybe have been shot with a cannon but the historian said the hole on hull was natural idk bout that maybe it sank on the way back

@@KlowninnPlays The sailors on the Housatonic didn't try to aim their guns at the Hunley until it was too late. According to the testimony given at the hearing there was only small arms fire and some speculate that the break in the forward hatch coaming could have been caused by it.

How many times is it necessary to disprove that theory before people with only a superficial understanding of the story of the H.L. Hunley stop bringing it up? It's so easy to say, "oh, it must have been the explosion that sank the boat." It's much more difficult to find a theory that actually fits the evidence.

@@barryrogoff6764 Read IN THE WAVES by Rachel Lance.

I don't give a fuck what anyone says. I love and respect any place that gathers an army from nothing but farmers, etc and is strong enough to stand on their own and give a standing army a run for their money. I don't care. Much more respect for the Confederacy than the union

​@Squirley Spitmonkey Hell no....they could have picked that cotton and tobacco if they was that strong....👎🏿

@@TheUglyHooker really is that all you can say?

@@tinachandler3091 I got as much respect for them as I do for suicide bombers. Society has become so fake that even the truth actually bothers people

Mike Bartlett, I dunno.....let's ask everyone......

Many. You can buy a replica from the Friends website.

Not a replica. That is the actual submarine itself

And you should spell check.

@@susiearviso3032 fuck off. Was that spelled right?

@@susiearviso3032 Oh sorry... Fuck off.

@@susiearviso3032 Did you copy that grammar cop?

That depends on who you believe.

Clive Custler diving team found it, a few days after Custler had to leave to head back to Colorado.

E. Lee Spence claims to have found it first but was never credited with the discovery because he wouldn't reveal the exact location and his presentation of evidence was poor.

FadedVision YT, why do you bother writing a comment that just duplicates information in the video?

@@youtuuba because the docent is telling people it was never a confederate state ship when, if you see that it's wrong. When in fact it was a confederate state ship.

@@iflytango , every book and authoritative source I have seen says that the Hunley was never part of the Confederate navy, although the navy DID commandeer it from its civilian owner, and use it for their purposes. Some people will decide in their minds that if the Hunley was used by the navy that it belonged to the navy or was officially part of the navy. History says that the Hunley was never a commissioned vessel in the Confederate navy. THAT is what the museum curator was talking about, and according to factual history, he was correct in saying it. As for you assuming that I only believe or think this based on one statement made by a curator, that is an insulting and condescending attitude on your part. You don't know me, and you have no idea of how much width and depth there might be to the knowledge of others. Am I an expert? No, I am not. Am I an historian who studies and reads widely? Yes I am. So I will stick to my guns on this unless I see evidence that the Hunley was actually a commissioned vessel in the Confederate navy, and I doubt that will be forthcoming.

Minor correction- and respectfully made- it was possessed from the privateers by the Confederate Army, not the Navy. Regardless it still never was involved or commissioned with the CS Navy- so it's common name "CSS Hunley" is really misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the boat was referred to as the "Hunley" until after it sank.

What material, were the pipe and fittings, made of, and do they know what kind of pipe dope was used I'm guessing red lead,and lampwick

Why don't you go if you'd really like to go?

It was also named the Hunley by investors that had invested money into the building of the ship with Horace L. Hunley.

ChristianConservativ, I have read a lot of history and books about the Hunley, and NONE of them claim that the Hunley was an actual part of the Confederate Navy, or owned by the the Confederate states. I definitely got the impression that the the Hunley was a privately funded 'patriotic' enterprise that was indeed used in the Confederate cause. Even the Wikipedia page states that the Hunley was never part of the Confederate military. Apparently, although the Hunley remained privately owned, she WAS operated by members of the Confederate army/navy. So while I agree that the Hunley's history hovers over a gray area in terms of ownership & operation, I think it is wrong to condemn the folks at the Warren Lasch Conservation Center as "revisionists" for trying to be technically accurate in what they tell visitors.

@@youtuuba What sailors manned it 3 times? Union or Confederates? Maybe the Vikings, Aztecs, Romans? Maybe Geronimo was the captain? Give me a break. Then you bring in Wikipedia? lol

@@ChristianConservativ , make up your own rules if you must. But MANY authoritative history books and other sources state strongly that the Hunley itself was never owned by any part of the Confederate goverment or military, even though she was indeed manned by Confederate crews. You stated she was a Confederate ship, which is historically incorrect. By your logic, if I loan my car to a friend, the car belongs to him. Wrong!

@@youtuuba When the commanding general, i.e. P.G.T Beauregard, commandeered it under the authority of the Confederate States of America, it became property of the Confederate States of America. Now then, go and loan your friend your car.

John Hagen-Brenner, why aren't you the clever one! I'll alert the media. Seriously, it is not 'just' driving....it has narration, local information, and some nice scenery.

Jcgreen, I make my videos for intelligent adults, who are able to figure out the KZfaq fast-forward feature. But some other kinds of people try to watch, and then the bitching begins.

The general rule is if you don't get to the subject within the first 5 minutes of the video you've pretty much failed. intelligent adults? well this adult went to film school so...

@jcgreen926 , there is no "general rule". Quit your silly bitching.

Oh yeah, fix your sound.

@@jcgreen926 , another useless comment from you. Do you think I am a mind reader. Save yourself some work and stop with the pointless comments.

Bill Huber, enough of your small minded, rude, bossy commenting. I make videos that include ambience. If you don't like it, don't watch it, or at least use the fast forward control.... That's why it's there. You write like you think I owe you something....jeez!

I agree it wasnt what i came for but i just forwarde to the cool stuff. A longer video pays better so i understand why youtoooooba done it.$$$$$$$ makes the world go round go round....

Christopher480, I will file your comment in the "pointless and ungrateful comments by people who have not figured out how to use KZfaq's fast-forward feature".

Freddy Mustafa, this is the second comment of yours that I have read today. It is becoming apparent that your mode of operation is to blindly make wildly uninformed public comments, rather than taking the bother to try doing a little basic research first. Hell, I even say in the video that the Hunley DID have a weapon, and if you had bothered to read only the Wikipedia entry on the Hunley, you would not need to "guess" as you did. How about exerting just a bit of effort?

@@youtuuba I apologize,I need to pay more attention but I still love your vids,thank you