Posted by auger on August 23, 2008 at 4:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hundreds, if not thousands, of us knew something was there. We fished, anchored, played on top of it for decades. We just didn't know what that "bump" on the bottom really was. Glad the discovery will finally be uncontested.

Posted by auger on August 23, 2008 at 4:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hundreds, if not thousands, of us knew something was there. We fished, anchored, played on top of it for decades. We just didn't know what that "bump" on the bottom really was. Glad the discovery will finally be uncontested.

Posted by UberBlitzkrieg on August 23, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

auger... you my friend are a goof. Tell Mr. Spence hello when you have dinner with him.

The bump?! Please! It was 5 feet under the floor. Go away and talk your gibberish someplace else.

Posted by sgtpsycho on August 23, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Back in 74 when Psycho was a reporter (before renouncing Marxism and getting a real job), Spence showed me some charts and made what I thought was a credible claim. The sub was indeed found by Cussler's outfit in the area he showed me, as I recall, but of course it's too bad Spence did not have some type of empirical evidence at the time. He has, one way or another made himself a part of the sub's lore.

Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 23, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

After SEVEN years? Why drop it now if you were really the one who found it? Wouldnt you want your name to be credited for finding the Hunley? Hmmm, interesting....

Posted by jeff61 on August 23, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Because pursing this matter any further would have been like passing an accident on the highway - I don't WANT to look, but sometimes I look, and then I feel nauseous and hate myself for exposing myself to that.

Posted by ChasCarolinaGirl on August 23, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL ... Jeff! You are something else!

Posted by halfsheli on August 23, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Doesn't it say that Cussler dropped the lawsuit? And Cussler and NUMA ARE credited with the discovery.

Posted by eatmorecollards on August 23, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would say that lots of people probably stumbled across it over the years, but Mr. Cussler was the only one to have the ability to prove it.

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 23, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Because of space limitations, my response the forgoing article appears as multiple comments, I hope you will read them all (signed, E. Lee Spence):

If I was someone reading the above article and did not know the facts, I would probably believe that Cussler was the discoverer of the ““Hunley”” and that he was being very generous in dropping the lawsuit against me.

However, that does not reflect the true facts. Mr. Cussler never dove on the wreck and saw the “Hunley” for the first time only after it was raised in August of 2000. He was not even the director of the expedition that he announced in 1995 had discovered it.

Posted by letstakeawalk on August 23, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've met Mr. Spence, and in personal conversation I found him to be very intelligent, thoughtful, and courteous. I listened to his story of finding the Hunley, but at the time I was more enthralled with a rather large jewelled gold idol from the South Pacific he had been carrying aroung because the bank was closed and he had taken it from its safe-deposit box home.

This article does a very poor job of analyzing what's been going on.

1. "Clive Cussler...Friday he dropped his seven-year legal battle with a South Carolina man over the claim." If you can win a case, you don't drop it.

2. "Spence filed a countersuit, which was thrown out of court last year." That case was dismissed for a technicality (statute of limitations had passed), not because the claim was without merit.

Why would Cussler sue Spence for defamation? He has the official credit, and the income attached to that glory, while all Mr. Spence is asking for is the recognition of his role in the discovery.

Don't give up, Mr. Spence. I can tell you that the local historical community recognizes your contributions, even if the popular media prefers to let the courts decide history.

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 23, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cussler's claim of discovery dates from 1995 from an expedition that was directed not by Cussler, but by Dr. Mark Newell, who, under sworn oath, has stated that he used my maps to direct what was actually an expedition conducted under the auspices of Newell's then employer, the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology & Anthropology (SCIAA), and that Newell considers what the divers, who were funded by Cussler, but were part of the SCIAA expedition, did in 1995 to have been only a verification of my prior discovery. By the time the SCIAA expedition went to the “Hunley” site and dug it up, against Newell's specific instructions, I had already published three books (1976, 1985 and 1995 respectively) in which I told of my 1970 discovery of the wreck and correctly described the “Hunley’s” location. The last book came out only a few months before Cussler started making his claims and included a map with an "X" showing the “Hunley’s” location. That "X" placed the “Hunley” well within the length of the salvage boat that was used to raise the “Hunley”. My books are available through numerous libraries and Ralph Wilbanks, the diver who ran the boat the day of NUMA's alleged discovery, had been given an autographed copy of the 1995 book well prior to that day's diving.

In 1976, the wreck of the “Hunley” was nominated by the National Park Service to the National Register of Historic Places on the basis of my 1970 discovery and my 1974 map of the “Hunley’s” location, which I had furnished to the National Park Service as part of Sea Research Society's efforts to gain permission to salvage the wreck. Placement of any shipwreck on the National Register requires that the actual location be known. The nomination was approved and the wreck of the “Hunley” was placed on the register in 1978. All of that is a matter of public record.

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 23, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My health issues that were mentioned in the article, as one alleged reason for Cussler dropping his suit, were largely resolved years ago. Cussler was aware of that because I my health was reviewed under court order. I am actually back shipwreck diving on a regular basis and I am currently involved in an expedition near Haiti.

It was also implied that my finances are in poor shape. They are certainly not what I wish they were and this case has cost me a fortune, but as I testified under oath, I estimate my net worth to be in the millions of dollars, so I would certainly have been able to pay damages, if the court had ever ruled in Cussler's favor.

The article also says that I never appealed the judge's 2007 ruling which dismissed my case under the statute of limitations. That is misleading. Although the judge's ruling was never appealed to a higher court, we certainly sought through various motions and hearings to have my suit reinstated and the last hearing was earlier this summer. In other words, I fought hard to keep my case in court.

My defense to Cussler's case was to be that I had told the truth (i.e. I was the discoverer of the “Hunley”). I very much wanted the opportunity to present my evidence before a jury, but, by Cussler's dropping his suit, it denies me of that opportunity. So ask yourself this question. Why would Cussler drop a suit that would have allowed all of the evidence, both his and mine, to be heard, when, had he won, it would allowed him to potentially collect millions of dollars and would have ended the debate.

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 23, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cussler claims he never made anything off his alleged discovery of the “Hunley”. But is that true? The fact is, his alleged discovery collectively received, through articles published all over the world, like those written by Kropf, millions of dollars worth of free publicity. But, in a deposition given under oath, Cussler swore that his allegedly non-fiction book telling of the alleged discovery made millions of dollars in royalties. Furthermore, Cussler's alleged discoveries, many disputed, have earned him numerous honors and he has used his alleged discovery of the “Hunley” to promote the sales of his novels which have earned him many more millions. Cussler started his career working for a public relations firm and he is an expert at the PR game. I am not.

The article also failed to mention that in 1995, after Cussler had made his first claims, the “Hunley” Commission had the attorney general's office investigate my discovery claim. After the Attorney General's investigation and report, Senator McConnell had me testify before the “Hunley” Commission under oath about my discovery. And only after that sworn testimony did he ask me to donate my rights to the “Hunley” to the state. Those were specific ownership and salvage rights that I had originally claimed, as “finder of lost property” and as “salvor in possession”, in my 1980 federal district court filing. I signed the donation agreement then and there, with Attorney General Charles M. Condon signing for the state. I don't think that Condon would have signed, had he not truly believed me to be the discoverer and owner of the “Hunley”. The “Hunley” has been valued at over $17,000,000 so that was quite a gift.

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 23, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The finding of the “Hunley” has been described by government officials as the most important archaeological discovery of the 20th century. Official recognition of the discovery, which was impossible prior to its onsite 1995/1996 verification, would be the archaeological equivalent of an Olympic gold medal. But, unlike Olympic gold medals, where hundreds are given out every four years (actually every two, if you count both the Winter and the Summer games), this would be the most important gold medal for the century, not just that year's competition. The true stars of the Olympics stand to make millions of dollars through product endorsements, book rights, speaking fees, etc., or in the case of the top winner, even hundreds of millions. That is why I claimed the damages that I sought.
Signed,
Edward Lee Spence

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 23, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I inadvertently left out the word "underwater." My previous post should have read "the most important underwater archaeological discovery." Sorry about that,
Lee

Posted by bfk on August 23, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As history can attest, future researchers, having no axe to grind, will analyze the record and publish the accurate tale of who did what and when.

Rest assured, Mr. Spence; your story will become a lasting part of the Hunley's legacy.

Posted by bfk on August 23, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I apologize... I meant to write "Dr. Spence"

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 23, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One reader commented “The sub was indeed found by Cussler's outfit in the area he showed me, as I recall, but of course it's too bad Spence did not have some type of empirical evidence at the time.” I appreciate his recollection, but he is incorrect that I lack empirical evidence.

My published mapped location was correct. The Hunley was found at that site. Although, I had plotted the location using only a handheld compass and a sextant from a rocking boat in the 1970s, I still plotted my “X” for the Hunley’s location well within the built in error of the NOAA chart. And, although GPS had not yet been invented when I mapped the Hunley’s location, I was within the official government level of accuracy for satellite based GPS as recently as 1997.

The alleged “changing coordinates” is a red herring. All of my descriptions of the Hunley’s location were factually accurate. They were simply expressed in different terms. For instance it would be just as accurate to say “the Charleston City Hall is located across the street from the Federal Post Office” as to say it is “located at the Four Corners of Law in Charleston” or to give the specific longitude and latitude.

Had Cussler not claimed in 1995 that the Hunley had been found in 18 to 20 feet of water inshore of the Housatonic, while my location was in 28 feet of water several hundred yards offshore of the Housatonic (making the two locations well over a mile apart), it is doubtful that reporters would have treated him as the discoverer. Had Cussler immediately told the true location, they could have compared it to the one shown on the map in my book. After such comparison, I believe they would have simply credited him with the first independent verification of my discovery. But by waiting for approximately a year before he publicly admitted to this newspaper that he had "lied" (his own word for what he did), it created confusion that unfortunately will never be completely undone. His lie was published all over the world.

Fortunately, many have started looking at the competing claims objectively. In a cover story on the Hunley by “U.S. News & World Report” I was credited with the Hunley’s 1970 discovery. I never spoke with the authors of that story and from the obvious depth of their research they certainly would certainly have known of Cussler’s claims. They simply got it right. Hopefully, others will too.

Lee

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 23, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The article starts out mentioning Cussler's court wins, but he hasn't been the only one with wins. I "won" a number of my motions (and "lost" some others) while his side "lost" some of theirs (and “won” some others) before my case was finally dismissed due to the statute of limitations. The judge's sympathies appeared to be with me, and my suit was thrown out on a legal principle and not on the facts or its merits.

In an entirely separate court case, Cussler was sued relative to the movie based on his book "Sahara." The movie had been expected to have a built in audience of many millions of loyal Cussler fans, but ticket sales fell far short of expectations. The plaintiff claimed Cussler had over-stated his book sales by tens of millions of copies over reality, thus falsely inflating the value of his name. Cussler lost that case and the Plaintiff was awarded millions of dollars. I don't think that case would have helped his credibility in court.

Lee

Posted by Egap on August 23, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Know where I can find some G. A. Trenholm's Honey Mustard Sauce. I dearly want some.

Posted by stocktonrobert on August 23, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The best proof that Spence found the Hunley is that it was pulled out of the water at the very location that he said it was. Spence charted the location in 1970, and sent copies of the chart to various state and federal agencies, seeking funding to raise the submarine. Unfortunately, no one was interested in funding the project at that time. However, Spence's original chart and correspondence with numerous public officials concerning the Hunley, dating from the 1970s and later, are still in his archives. Also, he published his chart in one of his books (Treasures of the Confederate Coast: The Real Rhett Butler & Other Revelations). Obviously, Cussler's minions used Spence's coordinates to "find" the Hunley.

Posted by scgaffer2u on August 23, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

During World War II, a total of 52 submarines with 3,617submariners were lost at sea. Likewise, the battleship Arizona remains submerged with its crew on board. During the “Cold War” the nuclear submarines Thresher and Scorpion were lost at sea with all hands on board. Clearly, Naval tradition dictates that the final resting place of sailors is the ship on which they served.

Should not the men of Hunley have received the same respect? They would have - except for the inflated egos and unmitigated greed of those mentioned in this article. Mr. Cussler got his moment of glory while millions of taxpayer dollars continue to be squandered. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, the desecration of the Hunley gravesite was a crime. One can only hope that those responsible will get their just rewards.

A February 2007, Reader’s Digest article (page 148), is entitled: Your Money For This? It details how the South Carolina taxpayers got fleeced. Perhaps, your state senator and representative would be interested in your opinion on this matter.

Posted by jstanotherday on August 23, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm-well it seems to me with your finances in the millons that you couldn't afford the expense of actually finding the Hunley and raising her. Another free loader attempting to catch glory at someone else's expense. I would have dropped the law suit as well......your just not worth the fuss!!!!

Posted by CaptPete on August 24, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It Seems Cussler may have used Spence's map in the published book to search the location. Being burried five feet required Cussler's equipment to confirm the location. It seems both men took a part in this.

Posted by maclilus on August 24, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In reference to SCGaffer2u, the 'tradition' alluded to is only if the bodies cannot be recovered. Other ships in Pearl Harbor, such as the Oklahoma, also had hundreds of bodies. The only reason many men were left on the Arizona and the Utah was the practicality of salvage. Otherwise, they would be resting in a national cemetery.

Technology has advanced that more wrecks than before can be accessed, if not salvaged. If the Hunley rested undisturbed, it would eventually have been desecreted by relic hunters, pipeline layers or even an errant supertanker. Keeping wreckage always poses risks that would outweigh any properly supervised salvage.

Posted by jeff61 on August 24, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would recognize Spence as the discover. I think he has proven that. For whatever its worth.

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 25, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Several people have claimed that the Hunley was buried under five feet of sand. That is misleading as the sands off Charleston are constantly shifting, sometimes by several feet in a single storm. Hurricane Hugo passed directly over the wreck site in 1989. The water depth at that location is within one foot today of its officially surveyed depth in 1865. The Hunley "subsided" or "sank" into the bottom. When I found it in 1970, less than 20' of its length and only part of the top of the hull was exposed. When I returned in 1971 to photograph it, it was buried, as it was each other time he returned to the site.

When the wreck was investigated by archaeologists in 1996 the top of it was less than 18" under the sand. Why anyone would want to misrepresent the depth of sand and claim a deeper depth is very curious and you might ask yourself why.

As to why I didn't dig it up, I couldn't because even before I filed my 1980 claim in federal district court the Hunley had been placed on the National Register (because of my discovery). I repeatedly tried to get permits so that Sea Research Society could excavate and raise it, and then donate it to a museum (Patriots Point). My efforts to do something continued for a quarter of a century and I had even given the NUMA people copies of my 1995 book with its map and had encouraged them to go to my spot so they could verify my discovery.

After I donated my rights (at the official request of Senator McConnell) to the wreck to the State of South Carolina, the Hunley Commission asked me to lead a SCIAA expedition to the site. I not only agreed to do so, I made it clear that my services would be at no charge and I further offered to arrange boats at no costs and to provide free use of my diving and salvage equipment. My offer can be found in the official minutes of the Hunley Commission so it is a matter of public record.

It was only after Cussler's published threat to give $100,000 to Senator McConnell's political opponent that I was not permitted to participate in the verification and recovery operations.

Lee

Posted by HunleyFinder on August 25, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Cussler/NUMA funded team was part of an expedition by the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology & Anthropology, which, by law, is exempt from needing a permit to excavate underwater sites. That was the loophole, which allegedly allowed them to dig it up and photograph it. However, when they dug up the site, they allegedly did it against the instructions of underwater archaeologist Dr. Newell (the expedition’s official director) and Newell publicly accused them of being unqualified (which I disagree with) and of failing to record important archaeological information and damaging the site (which I do not care to comment on either way).

I believe the NUMA dive team’s digging partially explains why the test results for the dating of the overburden did not conform to scientific theory and gave inconsistent results. Those results gave a burial date of over one hundred years, but were considered by the scientist who did them to be unreliable. In fact, those test results could just as easily be interpreted to support either my claims or Cussler’s claims. I haven’t used them to support my case because I know they relied on certain critical factors being constant when it is known that they were not. Furthermore, according to the official report the tested sample was taken at the level of the keel and I have never claimed that I saw anything more than part of topmost portions of the sub and I have always said the rest was buried.

Obviously you cannot accurately say something was buried for over a hundred years when, only a year before the test samples were taken, the wreck had been dug up and exposed by the SCIAA/NUMA dive team. This is especially true as they exposed roughly the same portion of the wreck that I saw in 1970.

In a nutshell, what has been published by some about the depth and about the test results relating to the age of the "burial" of the Hunley must be taken with a grain of salt.

Posted by JLWDALFAN on August 25, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'M GLAD THAT HE DROPPED THIS SUIT. ALL IT WAS DOING WAS COSTING MONEY. THE PUBLIC WILL BELIEVE WHO IT BELIEVES.

Posted by minxiemaid on September 25, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

okay hunleyfinder your repetative posting is giving me a migraine (almost 90% of comments here are YOURS)
As far as I know Dr.Cussler has never received a single dime for his wreck discovery, and he does not salvage anything he finds but turns the information over to the proper authorities so they can salvage the wrecks. Nor do I think he required the Hunley to make publicity for his books, he's a well known, well published author already. The royalties from his books go to fund his wreck finding and going after the Hunley cost him over 100,000 (just for the search)
I fail to understand how you, with your multimillions as you claim to have would be unable to afford a salvage operation.
What is to say that when discovered it wasn't in 5 ft of silt? You said yourself that the silt levels kept shifting.
IF you truly are the FIRST visitor to the Hunley...history will vindicate you. IF not, the truth will out.
Sorry folks but I figured that since Dr.Cussler seemed to be getting more than his fair share of torpedoes launched at him, another person may as well say their piece for his side of things.