In which decade did steamship become commonplace

[mad orc]

I am interested in knowing answers to following questions .

1)In which decade did steamship become commonplace
2)In which decade did steamships become commonplace in the American continent.
3)How much did a steamship cost in early to mid 19th century.

 

[Jopa79]

Not sure if you mean steamboat - not to be confused with steamship

Nevertheless, trying to submit some info - maybe not a commonplace but the golden era of steamships was the era of being as ocean liners during the European immigration to the United States approximately from 1870-1930. Ocean passenger lines like Cunard Line, Red Star Line, White Star Line operated from European port cities like Southampton, Liverpool, Antwerp and many others and transported hundreds of thousands, perhaps even several millions of European immigrants to the American continent. When arriving to the US, every single one of these immigrants had to go through Ellis Island and the immigration inspection station in New York Harbor.

SS Finland (1902) arriving in New York Harbor 1906. American-flagged steamship was an ocean liner - chartered also by the American Olympic Committee to transport the US Olympic Team to Europe during the era. Also known as USAT Finland during the WWI she made five (5) transatlantic runs carrying US troops to Europe and back to the US. USAT Finland was torpedoed by U-93, but was able to return to port for repairs. On the right picture is the smoking room for the second class in SS Finland c.1909.

 

[Sanny]

They started gaining popularity in Britain somewhere around 1820-40. But they were used on rivers since early 1800s. The first steamship line was actually London to Le Havre.

Steamships weren’t all that expensive around 1860 but the introduction of the iron hulls of course increased the cost.

Interesting piece of history though, during the US Civil War, the CS bought cheap but high quality steamships made in Glasgow, Scotland, and ran the Union blockade with them from Liverpool and the Bahamas (sometimes Bermuda) into Texas or the Carolinas, it didn’t matter if they were captured on the second run because the first run would produce astronomical profits from smuggled goods. The ships were disposable so probably an indicator to how cheap they were.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

More how valuable the cargo was to the impoverished South than the cost of the vessel. But you make a good point.

 

[Yakman]

Wonder if the Brits got burned on what would be worthless Confederate script or if they were cut in on the cotton sale in the UK?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Wonder if the Brits got burned on what would be worthless Confederate script or if they were cut in on the cotton sale in the UK?

I can answer that for you.

Through the sale of Cotton Bonds on the London market during the early years of the War of the Rebellion, the Confederacy had a ready supply of British currency and gold in London proper.

The Erlanger Cotton Bonds were sold in London through the Erlanger Investment company in Paris via intermediaries in the financial center of New Orleans. And essentially one bond was worth one bale of cotton. This has the cumulative effect of encouraging Europe to break the Union blockade so the South could honor their commitments.

The Erlanger Bonds created ready currency and gold reserves for the Confederacy inside Europe that could be used to purchase weapons, material, and other vital necessities. With hard currency, it was very easy to contract shipyards to biuld 'peaceful' ships for 'trade'; including CSS Alabama, the Denbigh - a steam powered double paddle ship out of Liverpool - amongst others.

The US agents in London widely reported the bonds would be honored regardless of how the war ended, therefore even after Gettysburg and Vicksburg the Cotton Bonds were still being sold and kept the Confederacy solvent.

After the war, the US of course included wording in the post-war Constitutional amendments that they had zero interest in paying back any loan contracted by the Rebel states.

Buyer beware!

 

[HuzzButt]

Steam propelled vessels (not just ships but other crafts such as barges) used much the same infrastructure as the railroad and when you look at the extension of rail roads you'll often see it paired with steam barges, The Russian transiberian railway and the Lake Baikal crossing is one of the more memorable example of a needlessly delayed infrastructure project.

Smaller ships such as fishing vessels vere rarely converted to steam, it was simply not necessary or just too expensive/complex. When the hot bulb engine came into production at the turn of the century it had the advantage of being simple, reliable and able to run on anything from butter to kerosene.

 

[krieger11b]

I can answer that for you.

The US agents in London widely reported the bonds would be honored regardless of how the war ended, therefore even after Gettysburg and Vicksburg the Cotton Bonds were still being sold and kept the Confederacy solvent.

After the war, the US of course included wording in the post-war Constitutional amendments that they had zero interest in paying back any loan contracted by the Rebel states.

Buyer beware!

Not to derail but was that just massive backfire for the US agents? Was the intent to keep Europe out of the war since they will get paid if the Union wins but ended up just getting the CSA more money?

Also kind of back on topic googling if the steam ship concepts were shown to Napoleon was is questionable, not to mention I don't think they could produce high enough quality iron in large enough quantities to make steam engines in any quantity. So he would have been correct in dismissing at that point in time.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Not to derail but was that just massive backfire for the US agents? Was the intent to keep Europe out of the war since they will get paid if the Union wins but ended up just getting the CSA more money?

I came to the same conclusion a while back and have given it thought.

The logical answer is that the common understanding was that the Union would be required to meet the debts of any state within the Union. By carving huge flaming letters into the Constitution stating "NO PAYMENTS ON REBEL BONDS WILL BE CONTEMPLATED, DON'T BOTHER ASKING", the speculators came out on the short end of the stick because there was no court of higher authority.

 

[Henry IX]

I came to the same conclusion a while back and have given it thought.

The logical answer is that the common understanding was that the Union would be required to meet the debts of any state within the Union. By carving huge flaming letters into the Constitution stating "NO PAYMENTS ON REBEL BONDS WILL BE CONTEMPLATED, DON'T BOTHER ASKING", the speculators came out on the short end of the stick because there was no court of higher authority.

I think the Europeans assumed the states were legal entities and so the bonds they issued were binding - the states would continue to exist after the war, even if beaten, as the federal government most certainly lacks the constitutional power to dissolve states. As I understand it, the federal government got round this by classing the rebel states as not the legitimate government of those states (14th amendment section 3), and as such they did not have the power to issue bonds.

 

[demanvanwezel]

Not to derail but was that just massive backfire for the US agents? Was the intent to keep Europe out of the war since they will get paid if the Union wins but ended up just getting the CSA more money?

Also kind of back on topic googling if the steam ship concepts were shown to Napoleon was is questionable, not to mention I don't think they could produce high enough quality iron in large enough quantities to make steam engines in any quantity. So he would have been correct in dismissing at that point in time.

you have to consider that the french invaded mexico twice over money (allegedly) owed, first for 60K pesos and later for 600K pesos (the reparatians demanded after the first war)

if it becomes clear that the US wouldn't pay and the CSA would lose then it might just be that the europeans decide that they were going to get their money, one way or the other

so while yes this meant that the CSA remained solvent for a time this also decreased the chance of british gunboats showing up in boston and french soldiers in new orleans

 

[maxstevens]

It was interesting to read the opinions of people. I was interested in i this question also but did not have enough time to learn this inforamtion.

 

[Aethis]

The Steamship was fairly commonplace from the 1830's onward but we don't get full ocean going steamships until the screw propeller made them more economically viable.

The SS Great Britain from 1847 which was revolutionary in steamship design really kicked off the era of steamship ocean travel in the 1850's, though it wouldn't peak until the 1870's with better engine developments and the opening of the Suez canal.

 

[Jopa79]

SS Kuru was a Finnish cooperative/shareholder-owned steamship built in 1915. It operated only on lakes. SS Kurun sank on 7th of September in 1929 - still the most severe maritime disaster in Finnish lakes or rivers.

SS Kuru operated as a passenger ship in the lake of Näsijärvi, Tampere. During the 1920's car traffic was still low and using steamships for passenger transportation was common in Näsijärvi region. SS Kuru's outward journey began usually at 6:00am and stopping in 6 posts/harbors it arrived Tampere at 21:00pm. Return trip began usually at 15:15pm on the next day. Based on its popularity in lake transportation SS Kuru was upgraded with an extra deck against some shareholders' will and the producer dockyard - the original dockyard refused to do this extra work, but another engineering workshop completed this extra deck in demand. The contemporaries claimed that after undergoing the changes SS Kuru was a rickety and an unstable ship.

Unable to give any help for those in need. The crowd at Mustalahti Harbor, Tampere could only watch the events during the SS Kuru disaster.

Despite of the autumn storm and the heavy winds (8 Beauforts - 12 Beauforts in gusts) SS Kuru began its return trip from Tampere, Mustalahti on 7th of September at 15:15pm. Only traveling less than 1 000 meters three giant waves hit SS Kuru - two first waves filled the foredeck with water, the bow settled deeper, water flooded to the passenger rooms - when the third wave hit, SS Kuru had already strong heeling due to the water on-board, the ship turned to the crosswind, capsized and sank in few minutes. The distress was noticed by the people onshore and the harbor - the cries for help were even heard higher, in the downtown of Tampere, but without proper instruments and equipment people could mostly only helplessly observe the disaster.

With some vessels and row-boats present a ragged rescue effort was organized, but the bad weather hampered also this attempt and the rescuers were also in a great danger due to the bad 'marine' weather. Losing 136 or 138 lives, only 22 survived the SS Kuru disaster. After two weeks, SS Kuru was raised to the surface from a depth of 15 meters and on 14th of October 1929 it made its first passenger voyage after the disaster. As a disreputable steamship SS Kuru operated still 10 years as a passenger ship before converting into a flatboat.

A modern-day photo of the hull of SS Kuru - raised onto the ground, along the ship's old passenger-route