Florida State University Libraries
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Florida State University Libraries 2015 Designing Victory on the Civil War’s Sea: The Development and Use of Ironclad Warships in the American Civil War, 1830-1865 Gregory N. (Gregory Nathaniel) Stern Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES DESIGNING VICTORY ON THE CIVIL WAR’S SEA: THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF IRONCLAD WARSHIPS IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, 1830-1865 By GREGORY N. STERN A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2015 Copyright © 2015 Gregory N. Stern All Rights Reserved Gregory N. Stern defended this dissertation on November 3, 2015. The members of the supervisory committee were: Michael Creswell Professor Directing Dissertation Mark Souva University Representative Ron Doel Committee Member Kristine Harper Committee Member Kurt Piehler Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with the university requirements. ii To inventors for their ingenuity, to sailors for their courage, to my professors for their guidance, and to my parents for their patience. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project has been a combined effort that includes research that started over ten years earlier. My travels to the Virginia coast, New England, New York, Washington D.C., pouring over print and electronic resources would not have been possible without a great deal of guid- ance and support from members of my dissertation committee, parents, and some truly energetic archivists. My major advisor, Dr. Michael Creswell, always pushed me to be a better writer and make professional connections wherever my path led. Dr. Kristine Harper, who has served in the U.S. Navy as a meteorologist, continually showed me ways to make sense of the complexes of technology and science from a historical perspective. Dr. Ron Doel, a scholar who sees ideas and opportunities in every question posed, has provided me with a host of different views of the world that I can apply to this and future projects. I would like to thank Dr. Kurt Piehler for join- ing my committee and lending his considerable breadth of knowledge of military history to the examination of my manuscript. And I am also appreciative of Dr. Mark Souva’s expertise in po- litical science—grateful that I can contribute to the conversation between his field and history. I additionally would like to recognize Dr. P. David Dillard from at James Madison University— who was always an encouraging voice for my work at that stage. Conversations between myself and archivists are also something I have appreciated. Of particular I would like to note the exceptional work done at Boston, Massachusetts repositories including Harvard’s Baker Library and particularly at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Hart Nautical Collection in Boston—led in part by Kurt Hasselbalch. I would like to thank the archivists at the Mariners’ Museum in Newport News, Virginia, the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard library, Smithsonian, and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association for their tireless work, as well as those at the U.S. National Archives Building I in D.C.—especially Chris Killillay who did some extra digging for some obscure scraps of material for me. I must also credit the staffs at the collections in New York at the Public Library in Manhattan and the Histor- ical Society. This project also benefited from timely assistance by the staff at the Missouri His- tory Museum Library and Research Center. Lastly, I would like to thank Paul Thomsen from the Society for Military History in par- ticular, and the Society in general for giving me opportunities to refine some portions of the work you see here. Some sections were proofread privately, but others were also presented to conferences for feedback—including at the Society’s annual meetings. For that privilege, I will always be grateful. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: IRON-HULLED SHIPPING IN BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND THE UNITED STATES, 1821-1859 .....................................................................................................................32 CHAPTER 3: STEPHEN R. MALLORY’S IRONCLAD SOLUTION ......................................60 CHAPTER 4: WELLES’S WAY AND THE UNION IRONCLAD PROGRAM .......................88 CHAPTER 5: IRONCLADS AND THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT .........................136 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................167 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................174 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..………………………………………………………… ............184 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Explosion of the "Peace-maker" on board the USS Princeton .....................................66 Figure 2: Harper's Weekly rendering of Rebel ironclad Merrimac on 2 November 1861 ...........83 Figure 3: Sketch of the Atlantic Coast of the United States from Savannah River to Saint Mary's River Embracing the Coast of the State of Georgia ......................................................................96 Figure 4: Sketch G Showing the Progress of the Survey in Section Number 7 from 1849 to 1861 with Sub Sketch of Cedar Keys ....................................................................................................97 Figure 5: Ohio River between Mound City and Cairo – 1864 ....................................................103 Figure 6: Ohio River – 1865 .......................................................................................................104 Figure 7: Coast Chart Number 21 New York Bay and Harbor, New York .................................109 Figure 8: S.E. Virginia & Fort Monroe .......................................................................................120 Figure 9: Cumberland Gap Region .............................................................................................128 Figure 10: Cumberland Gap Area ...............................................................................................129 Figure 11: Confederate Fortifications on the Mississippi River – 1862 .....................................132 Figure 12: Military Map of South-Eastern Virginia [1864] ........................................................139 Figure 13: Military Map of South-East Virginia [1864] .............................................................143 Figure 14: North Carolina and South Carolina [1865] ...............................................................144 Figure 15: Charleston Harbor Map [1863] .................................................................................148 Figure 16: Fort Jackson, Louisiana [1862] .................................................................................151 Figure 17: Millikens Bend, LA & Jackson, MS [1863] ..............................................................153 Figure 18: Map of General Sherman's marches [1863-1865] .....................................................159 Figure 19: North Carolina [1865] ...............................................................................................163 vi ABSTRACT This is a study of the strategic and tactical use of ironclad warships during the American Civil War. The project seeks to examine why the naval administration on both sides (led by Gid- eon Welles for the Union and Stephen Mallory for the Confederacy) decided to give such vessels an opportunity in combat, their reaction to early operations (such as the famous battle at Hamp- ton Roads on 8-9 March 1862), and how they learned to deploy the ships as the war progressed-- accounting for difficulties with terrain, fortified opposition, learning curve for personnel, and weaknesses of the weapon system technology. The study also encompasses history of science and technology concepts such as gate- keeper theory and social construction of technology. The military gatekeepers, Union and Con- federate, had to adopt weapons that suited their strategic needs as a part of their overall objective. The Confederate’s need to maintain open ports and fend off the Union Navy’s superior numbers made superior quality of ships a viable recourse. The Union’s need to defeat the Confederate Navy, including overcoming any of the South’s technological leaps, made inclusion of ironclad warships a valid plan. However, both sides of the conflict had to deal with different socially con- structed backgrounds. The South’s agricultural heritage and lack of industrial development hin- dered its ability to build or improve naval technology at home—forcing it to look abroad for as- sistance at a time when major nations would not recognize the Confederacy’s official existence. The Union’s entrenched naval traditions and cumbersome bureaucracy slowed approval of new and often unproven technologies. The result of these forces, military and technological, was an unforgiving trial by fire for the ironclad armored